[0:11] >> Good morning,
[0:12] everybody. I would like
[0:13] to welcome you and call
[0:14] to order this meeting of the
[0:16] Transportation Policy Board.
[0:17] I'm filling in for the Dana
[0:20] this morning who's online and
[0:22] so since I'm in person,
[0:24] I'm going
[0:25] to run this morning's meeting.
[0:26] So if you've called in, we.
[0:29] Let's see here. A call
[0:31] in number has been provided
[0:32] on the meeting agenda
[0:34] for members of the public
[0:35] to call
[0:36] in and live stream the meeting.
[0:37] If you've called in,
[0:38] we ask that you mute your
[0:39] device to avoid interfering
[0:40] with the meeting. If a
[0:41] participant fails to mute their
[0:43] audio and causes description
[0:44] to the meeting, the connection
[0:46] will be muted and possibly
[0:47] disconnected.
[0:48] For remote participants who
[0:50] wish to speak, please use the
[0:52] raise the hand feet function
[0:54] in zoom. For those of us
[0:56] in person, you will need
[0:57] to turn on your microphone
[0:58] for everyone
[0:59] to see and hear you. The
[1:00] activation button is located
[1:02] at the base
[1:03] of the microphone. Gently tap
[1:04] or swipe the button which I
[1:06] failed to do earlier. And this
[1:09] button is located
[1:11] at the base. Please tap or
[1:12] swipe that button. This button
[1:14] will display green light and
[1:16] one is on and red one is off.
[1:18] Please turn off your mic when
[1:20] you're finished talking. So,
[1:22] Alex, you're going to do the
[1:23] roll call.
[1:30] >> I'll be going
[1:31] through the list on the screen
[1:32] for alternates. You may
[1:33] participate and vote. If your
[1:35] members not present,
[1:36] we'll be starting in Seattle.
[1:39] >> [ CALLING ROLL ]
[7:05] >> Thank you.
[7:13] >> So we have a quorum and we
[7:15] can start our meeting. Then
[7:17] we're to public comment. Is
[7:19] there anyone in the room or
[7:22] online that wishes
[7:23] to address the Regional
[7:24] Council?
[7:25] >> The board did not receive
[7:26] any written comment. No one
[7:28] signed up for online or
[7:30] in person comment.
[7:31] >> Okay, I will close the
[7:32] public comment period. Then we
[7:34] are to our consent. Chair
[7:39] reports. I guess I just broke
[7:41] the pen. All right,
[7:46] I don't have any remarks.
[7:48] Dana, do you have anything?
[7:50] >> Just would defer to Kelly
[7:51] to catch everybody up
[7:52] to speed.
[7:54] >> All right, well then go to
[7:55] Kelly and her director's
[7:56] report.
[7:58] >> All right. And I will be
[7:59] brief, but I did have a few
[8:00] things I wanted to share
[8:01] with you first. Last week was
[8:04] the week without driving. And I
[8:05] know many
[8:06] of your organizations may have
[8:08] participated. We did have a
[8:09] fair number
[8:11] of PSRC staff participate
[8:12] in that. And I think that staff
[8:14] would like to come back in
[8:15] November, learn a little bit
[8:17] more about what's happening
[8:18] around the region. But just a
[8:19] few quick observations that I
[8:20] was asked to share on that.
[8:21] From our perspective that it
[8:24] was. There are certainly some
[8:26] challenges,
[8:27] especially when you need to go
[8:29] grocery shopping and carry
[8:30] things when you have children
[8:32] with you. It takes a little bit
[8:33] of extra time. Also
[8:34] acknowledging that we are very
[8:36] fortunate here at PSRC. We have
[8:38] a very flexible work from home
[8:40] policy here and we also work
[8:42] in downtown Seattle where
[8:45] transit and access to transit
[8:47] is plentiful and acknowledging
[8:48] that we're fairly privileged
[8:50] in that.
[8:51] But when you get further out,
[8:52] things,
[8:54] things change a little bit
[8:55] in terms of what's available,
[8:56] levels of service, frequencies
[8:58] of service and things
[8:59] of that nature.
[9:00] But they also wanted, you know,
[9:01] just to make sure that we
[9:02] acknowledge that especially
[9:04] for those who've been
[9:05] in the region and lived
[9:06] in the region a fair bit,
[9:07] there is a lot happening.
[9:08] There's been a lot
[9:09] of improvements over the years
[9:10] and there continues
[9:11] to be improvements
[9:12] over the years. So it was a. I
[9:13] think everyone enjoyed kind of
[9:14] doing that experiment and we'll
[9:15] keep learning more.
[9:17] But I think it's very relevant
[9:18] to the work that we're doing on
[9:19] the regional transportation
[9:21] plan. Two other things I wanted
[9:22] to note is one, in the spirit
[9:24] you will see we have a climate
[9:25] presentation this morning,
[9:28] but I also wanted to share with
[9:29] you because I don't think I
[9:30] have done this yet that the
[9:32] South Central Puget Sound
[9:34] region was selected by the.
[9:37] It's C2ES. It is the. Let me
[9:40] find their acronym here,
[9:42] the center for. Where did I. I
[9:45] already lost it. Center for
[9:47] Climate and Energy Solutions,
[9:48] formerly the Pew center on
[9:49] Global Climate Change. They
[9:51] have what they call a Climate
[9:52] Resilient Communities
[9:54] Accelerator program. It's
[9:56] pretty exciting. And they
[9:57] selected the South Central
[9:58] Puget Sound region
[9:59] to participate in that. It's a
[10:01] two year program and it's
[10:02] really. They bring their
[10:03] resources to bring a lot
[10:05] of folks together
[10:06] from the public sector,
[10:08] the private sector communities.
[10:09] They have a lot
[10:11] of convenings that Year one is
[10:12] really about coordination and
[10:13] learning and identifying needs
[10:15] and potential actions. Year two
[10:17] is taking all
[10:19] of that and really zooming in
[10:21] on implementation of some
[10:23] of those actions. So we've
[10:24] already had two convenings.
[10:26] One on kind
[10:28] of setting the stage in
[10:29] Climate Resilient Economies
[10:30] Roundtable and then we had a
[10:32] Resources Connector forum which
[10:33] was really,
[10:34] really interesting. And the two
[10:35] hazards that are being focused
[10:37] on for our region are extreme
[10:39] heat and wildfire risk. So, so
[10:40] it's a really exciting program.
[10:42] Many of your organizations are
[10:43] involved as well. And I will
[10:45] continue to Share information
[10:46] and maybe invite C2ES
[10:49] to come give a presentation
[10:50] on that. And then last
[10:52] but not least, I did you
[10:53] received an email this morning
[10:54] from Alexa. We did have a
[10:56] revision to one item
[10:58] on the consent agenda. There
[10:59] was an additional project added
[11:01] to the routine amendment
[11:03] to our regional
[11:04] Transportation Improvement
[11:06] Program. And this was really.
[11:07] There was a bit
[11:09] of a misunderstanding
[11:10] of some programming timelines.
[11:11] And
[11:12] since this is the last
[11:13] amendment of the year,
[11:14] we needed
[11:15] to squeeze that project
[11:16] in so that that would allow
[11:17] them to the project schedule
[11:19] to stay on track. And it is
[11:20] number seven on the revised
[11:22] attachment that was sent
[11:23] to you this morning for the
[11:25] North Bend South Fork extension
[11:26] bypass. And happy
[11:29] to answer questions,
[11:31] but otherwise we can move on
[11:32] to the consent.
[11:33] >> All right, any questions
[11:34] for Kelly? Don't see any hands
[11:38] raised. So we'll move on
[11:40] to our consent agenda. We have
[11:42] a couple of items. One is
[11:45] minutes and then a routine
[11:46] amendment
[11:48] of the transportation
[11:49] Improvement program. Is there a
[11:50] motion to approve the consent
[11:51] agenda?
[11:52] >> I move to approve the
[11:54] consent agenda. Councilman
[11:55] Daughtry.
[11:58] >> Is there a second?
[12:00] >> Second. Dana Ralph.
[12:02] >> All right, thank you, Dana.
[12:04] To catch those both. All right,
[12:05] we have a motion and second
[12:06] to approve the consent agenda.
[12:08] All in favor,
[12:09] please say aye.
[12:10] >> Aye.
[12:13] >> Is there anyone opposed?
[12:16] Hearing on the consent agenda
[12:17] has been approved. We have a
[12:19] number of discussion items,
[12:22] the first of which is the 2026
[12:25] recommendations
[12:27] to the state legislature.
[12:29] Robin, this is you.
[12:31] >> Good morning, everybody.
[12:32] We'll first start out
[12:33] with a little bit
[12:34] of a federal and state update
[12:36] to sort of set the stage for
[12:37] our state legislative
[12:39] discussion. Of course,
[12:41] I'm sure everyone is aware
[12:42] we're in day nine
[12:44] of a federal shutdown.
[12:46] Democrats are demanding
[12:47] extension to Affordable Care
[12:49] act subsidies, while
[12:50] Republicans are saying that
[12:51] they will not negotiate until
[12:53] the government is reopened.
[12:54] And at this point,
[12:55] people are still pretty much
[12:57] in their corners. Of course,
[12:59] as the shutdown continues,
[13:01] the impacts continue to show up
[13:03] and become much more impactful.
[13:08] So Secretary Duffy held a press
[13:11] conference this week
[13:12] of DOT warning of the impacts
[13:14] on air traffic controllers and
[13:16] signaling that new project
[13:17] approvals will not happen. It
[13:18] is our understanding that most
[13:21] transportation funding is being
[13:23] reimbursed, both on the FHWA
[13:24] side and the FTA side. Again, I
[13:28] think the new projects are the
[13:29] area where you might see some
[13:30] delay with federal employees
[13:32] not reporting to work.
[13:33] In some cases, House members
[13:36] have begun to work on a bill
[13:37] to pay military
[13:38] before run funds run out on
[13:40] October 15. But at this time,
[13:43] House leadership is not
[13:44] supporting that move. And then,
[13:46] of course, the White House
[13:47] continues to threaten firings
[13:48] of federal workers,
[13:50] which is a Little different
[13:51] than past shutdowns where we've
[13:52] seen workers furloughed and
[13:54] then paid once the government
[13:56] reopens. One impact that we've
[13:59] seen here, that's fallout
[14:01] from the shutdown, was a cut to
[14:02] energy programs that included
[14:04] the Northwest Hydrogen hub and
[14:08] that had some impacts
[14:09] in our region to jet fuel and
[14:10] maritime that would have been
[14:13] part of that hub. I put up here
[14:15] a link to the New York Times
[14:17] article that sort
[14:18] of shows agency by agency how
[14:19] the shutdown is affecting
[14:21] various federal agencies and
[14:22] workers. And then another thing
[14:25] that we're watching that isn't
[14:27] germane necessarily
[14:28] to this body, however, I think
[14:31] will just have great impact in
[14:32] local communities is a
[14:34] continuum of care reductions
[14:36] that have been posed. The
[14:37] administration appears
[14:38] to be moving toward making
[14:39] changes that would impose time
[14:40] limits and therefore
[14:42] significantly reduce funding
[14:44] by about a third. And estimate
[14:46] estimates are that about
[14:48] 170,000 people would be
[14:49] at risk of homelessness. So
[14:51] we're watching this closely.
[14:53] National alliance and
[14:54] Homelessness is promising some
[14:56] additional information as they
[14:57] get it. And so we'll make sure
[14:58] to share with you on that.
[15:00] Turning over to the state side
[15:03] of things, you know,
[15:04] setting the scene
[15:06] before we talk about our state
[15:08] legislative recommendations.
[15:09] Overall, you know, there's some
[15:11] pretty significant impacts that
[15:13] are at play impacting our
[15:16] revenue collection,
[15:17] which include trade policy and
[15:19] tariffs, changes to federal
[15:21] government spending and
[15:22] employment levels,
[15:23] slow employment growth, slower
[15:25] revenue growth and high
[15:26] interest rates and continued
[15:27] geopolitical conflict. All
[15:30] in the good news category
[15:33] for my reports as
[15:34] of usual lately. So the overall
[15:37] revenue forecast that includes
[15:38] the General Fund, Education
[15:40] Trust and a few other accounts
[15:42] is looking at about a $900
[15:45] million decrease or about 6%
[15:47] for both the 2527 fiscal year
[15:52] and then the 2729 fiscal year.
[15:55] And I also have included a link
[15:58] to an article here. I always
[15:59] suggest as local government
[16:01] in particular elected officials
[16:02] to just take a look at this.
[16:04] It's actually a really good
[16:05] overview of where we are with
[16:06] the economy both nationally and
[16:08] at the state level. You can go
[16:11] on to the next slide. Last year
[16:13] we also started giving reports
[16:15] on a transportation revenue
[16:17] forecast. The good news is, I
[16:19] guess I do have some good news
[16:20] today is that as a result of
[16:22] revenue actions that the
[16:24] legislature took last year, we
[16:26] didn't see as significant
[16:27] decreases
[16:28] in the transportation budget,
[16:29] a very small one over the 23
[16:31] to 27, four year period of 19
[16:34] million and then about 125
[16:36] million for 2729 collections.
[16:38] You know,
[16:42] gas consumption does continue
[16:43] to decline, but
[16:44] of course we had that increase
[16:46] in the gas tax that went
[16:48] into effect this year. So we
[16:50] are seeing the impact
[16:51] of that compensating for the
[16:53] consumption decline. EV
[16:55] registrations continue
[16:56] to be up. Ferry ridership is
[16:58] down. However, fares are up.
[17:00] So there is a revenue increase
[17:02] in that account overall. And
[17:03] I've also included a link
[17:04] to that. So I'll pause there.
[17:07] That's pretty much the end.
[17:08] Except I'll just say, you know,
[17:09] I think going
[17:10] into the legislative session,
[17:11] we really are going
[17:12] to see a rough time. I think,
[17:15] you know, there just isn't very
[17:17] much funding. And of course,
[17:18] the federal cuts have an impact
[17:20] on what state legislators are
[17:21] going to do. So I think
[17:22] everyone's kind
[17:23] of bracing themselves for a
[17:24] very difficult year this year.
[17:27] State Legislature.
[17:31] >> Questions for Robin?
[17:35] Thank you for your report,
[17:36] Robin.
[17:38] >> So I guess we'll roll right
[17:39] into the recommendations to the
[17:41] state legislature. I'm joined
[17:42] today by Alyssa Quinn, who
[17:44] hopefully most of you know,
[17:46] who's our senior government
[17:47] relations specialist, just
[17:49] to do a little bit of a review
[17:51] of how we do this. We develop
[17:53] the recommendations and we
[17:55] consult with the executive
[17:56] board and then all
[17:57] of the policy boards
[17:59] during the month of October.
[18:00] And then the executive
[18:02] committee will make final
[18:03] recommendations
[18:04] to the executive board. And we
[18:05] try to really make sure that
[18:08] the recommendations are based
[18:10] on our adopted plans and
[18:11] policies that will help us
[18:13] achieve our regional priorities
[18:15] at the state level. And we try
[18:17] to keep them fairly broad
[18:19] in order to make sure that we
[18:22] can reflect what our regional
[18:24] attitudes are and also so that
[18:25] we can be nimble and react
[18:29] to things that occur, since
[18:30] things will definitely change
[18:32] between now and the beginning
[18:33] of session in January. And
[18:35] of course, you know,
[18:36] we're beginning to meet with
[18:38] state legislators right now.
[18:40] We met with Chair Fy a couple
[18:43] of weeks ago, and we have
[18:44] several others scheduled. So
[18:46] we'll be using that to inform
[18:47] how we approach the legislative
[18:49] session, of course. And now
[18:52] I'll just shift over to Alyssa
[18:54] to talk
[18:55] about the policy areas that are
[18:56] in our recommendations.
[18:58] >> Thanks, Robin. Hi, everyone.
[18:59] So these are the
[19:01] recommendations that were made
[19:03] to the state legislature last
[19:04] year. And PSRC staff recommend
[19:06] keeping the same four buckets.
[19:08] So keep the region moving,
[19:10] increase housing choices and
[19:12] affordability, significantly
[19:14] reduce greenhouse gas emissions
[19:16] and sustain a strong economy.
[19:18] And then Robin and I will go
[19:19] into a little bit more detail
[19:21] on the transportation and
[19:22] climate side.
[19:24] >> So last year,
[19:26] we did make a few changes
[19:28] to the recommendations
[19:30] to prioritize a number
[19:31] of different things. Those
[19:33] changes included prioritizing
[19:34] safety and then highlighting
[19:37] certain things that we really
[19:39] wanted to see in transportation
[19:40] investments that included
[19:41] stable revenue, making sure.
[19:43] We're able
[19:44] to complete projects of
[19:45] regional significance and then
[19:46] adequately funding maintenance
[19:48] and preservation, which
[19:49] of course, is showing up in our
[19:50] regional transportation plan
[19:52] discussions as well. And then
[19:53] we also have the road usage
[19:55] included on recommendations,
[19:57] as well as ferry funding.
[20:02] >> And then
[20:03] on the climate side,
[20:04] we're looking at reducing
[20:05] emissions and preparing
[20:06] for climate impacts. And now we
[20:08] will turn it over to you to see
[20:10] if anyone has any suggestions
[20:11] or recommendations they'd like
[20:12] to make.
[20:15] >> Any comments or suggestions
[20:19] for staff. Go ahead,
[20:26] Christine.
[20:28] >> Good morning. This is
[20:29] Christine Cooley from the
[20:30] Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. I
[20:31] had a minor ask that we add the
[20:34] Comprehensive Climate Action
[20:35] Plan along the Vision 2050
[20:37] messaging because I am so
[20:38] grateful for the coordination
[20:39] between Puget Sound Regional
[20:41] Council and the agency when it
[20:42] comes to our climate goals.
[20:44] And I think it's important
[20:45] to show that to legislators
[20:48] that were coordinated and we
[20:49] agree
[20:50] on the plans put forward.
[20:53] >> We can certainly make that
[20:54] change to make sure we're
[20:56] indicating our great
[20:58] collaboration.
[21:01] >> Councilmember Schneider, go
[21:02] ahead.
[21:03] >> Thank you. I'm wondering if,
[21:05] as part of this presentation
[21:08] to the legislature, are we
[21:10] including is probably related
[21:12] to the climate, the climate
[21:15] change plan. I've been really
[21:17] interested
[21:19] to hear the PSRC analysis
[21:22] of the levers that we have.
[21:25] And is that part
[21:27] of what we're presenting? Does
[21:29] the legislature know what's
[21:31] really needed in order
[21:33] to move the needle?
[21:36] >> So we have been doing
[21:37] extensive outreach. Alyssa and
[21:40] I have both been contacting our
[21:41] state legislators as part of
[21:43] our regional transportation
[21:44] plan outreach,
[21:46] outreach process. And we have
[21:47] had several state legislators
[21:48] attend. I believe the King
[21:50] county meeting we had two,
[21:51] two legislators attend.
[21:52] But we're making sure
[21:54] to email them so that they're,
[21:55] you know, they're aware
[21:56] of what we're doing as kind
[21:57] of a step one. And certainly
[21:59] when we're sitting
[22:00] down and meeting
[22:01] with legislators,
[22:02] we're talking about the
[22:03] regional transportation plan.
[22:04] We have a plan to meet
[22:05] with all of the legislators
[22:07] in our region to make sure they
[22:09] know what we're doing and what
[22:10] the plan is, you know,
[22:11] for newer legislators who may
[22:13] not be familiar
[22:14] with what we do here at PSRC.
[22:16] So I don't think we're going
[22:17] to actually put it
[22:18] into the legislative agenda,
[22:20] but we're. That's exactly what
[22:22] we're talking to people
[22:23] about when we're meeting
[22:24] with them.
[22:27] >> Other comments? Deputy
[22:30] Mayor Arnold, go ahead.
[22:32] >> Thank you. And I think we're
[22:33] on the right track
[22:34] on the policy piece. Just
[22:36] looking at how we present this
[22:37] in the future, shorter and more
[22:38] concise is better. And if
[22:40] they're, especially
[22:41] in a short session. If there's
[22:43] a way that we can get this
[22:44] down to a single page instead
[22:45] of a single page, front and
[22:47] back, that'd be our only
[22:49] feedback.
[22:51] >> We'll receive that feedback
[22:53] at the executive board. It's a
[22:54] little difficult to pare it
[22:55] down when we have all these
[22:57] long plans. If you spell them
[22:59] out, it take up a long time.
[23:00] We are thinking
[23:01] about doing some kind of like a
[23:02] cover page document maybe that
[23:03] has sort
[23:04] of the very high points
[23:06] of what we're talking about.
[23:07] And we'll do our best to edit
[23:10] as much as we can because we do
[23:11] understand that, you know,
[23:13] legislative attention span is
[23:15] limited. So thank you
[23:16] for that.
[23:21] >> Anything from online?
[23:24] Senator, Go ahead.
[23:26] >> Thank you. Now, you
[23:27] mentioned the preparing for
[23:28] climate impacts and being new
[23:30] to the board, is there a
[23:33] document that you've got online
[23:34] there that you see what, what
[23:36] you're actually addressing?
[23:37] And quite honestly, having sat
[23:41] on the Senate budget Cabinet
[23:44] and looking at the numbers, I
[23:47] mean, I think we need
[23:48] to be really realistic as
[23:50] to what we can do. As far as,
[23:52] you know, when you talk about
[23:53] maintenance and preservation,
[23:54] we, you know, as you are well
[23:56] aware, we're over a billion
[23:57] behind in annual, you know,
[23:59] repairs. So, you know, it's
[24:03] important that we really take a
[24:05] good hard look at what's the
[24:06] practical application moving
[24:08] forward, how do we balance,
[24:10] you know, what we want to see
[24:12] with what we have to do. So is
[24:15] that document online?
[24:20] >> I believe the legislative
[24:21] recommendations
[24:23] from last year are
[24:25] in your packet. So you can look
[24:26] at the climate, which is
[24:28] of course very limited.
[24:29] But we can certainly follow up
[24:31] with you, Senator, to give you
[24:32] some more information
[24:34] on what we're doing here
[24:35] around climate at PSRC. But our
[24:37] climate asks are fairly limited
[24:38] on the legislative side.
[24:41] >> Thank you.
[24:45] >> Any other comments or
[24:46] questions? All right,
[24:50] hearing none. We're going
[24:51] to move on
[24:52] to our next discussion item.
[24:54] This is Kelly with the Ad Hoc
[24:56] Committee on Board
[24:57] Representation.
[25:02] >> Good morning. Let me go
[25:04] to my cover slide here. Okay,
[25:13] good morning. Thank you and
[25:14] thanks, Robin and Alyssa. So I
[25:17] believe you all received an
[25:18] email from Sheila Rogers
[25:21] on behalf of Josh related
[25:23] to this ad hoc committee
[25:25] on board representation
[25:26] with some, with some background
[25:27] and some options. And so today
[25:29] we just want to give you
[25:30] another very brief kind
[25:32] of introduction
[25:33] to it and take, we're going
[25:34] to take a quick poll just
[25:35] to kind of take a temperature
[25:37] of the room on this.
[25:38] But as a quick background, our
[25:40] interlocal agreement does call
[25:41] for membership to be
[25:44] reconsidered every three years
[25:45] specifically for the
[25:47] Executive Board and the, the
[25:49] Executive Committee Said, let's
[25:51] go ahead. It's been some time
[25:53] since we looked at our,
[25:55] our membership parameters
[25:56] for our policy board. So we're
[25:57] also taking a look this time
[25:58] for that. And, and an ad hoc
[25:59] committee on board
[26:01] representation has been pulled
[26:02] together. We tried
[26:03] to bring members from all
[26:04] around the region, but also
[26:06] representing our four boards
[26:07] and several transportation
[26:09] policy board members, including
[26:10] our chair and vice chair are,
[26:14] as well as many others I can
[26:15] see on the list here,
[26:16] are represented
[26:18] on that ad hoc committee. So
[26:19] I'm sure that they are going to
[26:20] appreciate whatever comments
[26:21] and polling you have today. So
[26:25] in the both in the packet and
[26:28] in the email that was sent out,
[26:29] I believe some alternatives
[26:31] were looked at. And in
[26:32] particular the executive board
[26:33] has a provision that cities
[26:36] with a population than greater
[26:38] than greater than 80,000
[26:39] receive a seat. And so the
[26:41] alternative, looking
[26:42] at the policy board membership,
[26:43] is also considering an
[26:45] alternative that would provide
[26:46] a voting seat on each
[26:48] of the policy boards
[26:49] in the same manner cities
[26:50] with greater than 80,000
[26:52] residents. Given that we do try
[26:54] to have a board that's not
[26:56] overwhelmingly large, but also
[26:58] to achieve geographic balance,
[27:00] the proposed alternative that
[27:02] was put forth would modify the
[27:04] number
[27:06] of other cities and towns
[27:07] for three
[27:08] of the four counties.
[27:09] Since many of the, I think all
[27:12] of the cities over 80,000 that
[27:13] are being added are in King
[27:14] County. It would reduce the
[27:16] number
[27:17] of other cities and towns in
[27:18] King county, but it would
[27:19] increase other cities and towns
[27:20] in Pierce and Snohomish
[27:22] counties by one again to
[27:23] maintain that geographic
[27:24] balance. And this you can see,
[27:28] while you probably can't see
[27:29] that because it's very, very
[27:30] small,
[27:31] but the yellow highlight is
[27:32] kind of showing those cities
[27:33] that are now above 80,000
[27:34] population and how it would be
[27:36] modified again. So King county,
[27:40] other cities and towns, 1, 2,
[27:41] 3, 4, 5, I believe are being
[27:44] added six, excuse me. And then
[27:46] reducing the other cities and
[27:48] towns down
[27:49] to one and then again
[27:50] for geographic balance,
[27:52] increasing the other cities and
[27:53] towns in Pearson Snohomish. So
[27:55] the overall number
[27:56] of voting members
[27:57] on the TPP would increase
[27:59] under this alternative. And
[28:03] again, in the spirit of keeping
[28:05] the board a manageable size and
[28:07] also quite frankly reflecting,
[28:10] you know, overall attendance
[28:11] patterns,
[28:12] there was also a part
[28:15] of the proposal was
[28:16] to modify the non voting seats.
[28:18] And you can see that currently
[28:20] we have 16, we have a fair
[28:21] number of seats for our
[28:24] associate members and public
[28:26] agencies and PSR PSRC
[28:27] committees, as well as six
[28:29] for business, labor, community
[28:33] and environment seats. And the
[28:34] alternative under consideration
[28:36] would reduce the overall number
[28:38] to 10. So we would have three
[28:40] standing seats
[28:43] for our partners at The Clean
[28:44] Air Agency, our equity advisory
[28:45] committee and Public Health.
[28:47] And then we, we would have two,
[28:50] seven total at large. Two
[28:51] representing our public
[28:53] agencies and associate members
[28:54] who would submit for those
[28:55] seats and then reducing our
[28:57] community seats by one down
[28:58] to two, five. So again this
[29:01] was. This is just some
[29:02] alternatives that are being put
[29:04] forth for consider. We are
[29:05] looking to hear from you. So
[29:09] I'm happy to take feedback. I
[29:12] know the next step is the ad
[29:14] hoc group is going to meet
[29:15] again and where they're going
[29:16] to be making a recommendation
[29:18] to the executive board
[29:20] for final action.
[29:21] But definitely would like
[29:23] to hear some feedback. But
[29:24] maybe we could go ahead. I know
[29:26] this is a bit quick,
[29:27] but hopefully you had time to
[29:29] evaluate the email that was
[29:30] sent out. But Alexa has created
[29:32] a quick poll. Just taking a
[29:33] temperature for the next ad hoc
[29:35] committee meeting
[29:36] to see if you want to keep the
[29:38] status quo or discuss an
[29:40] option, whether it's this
[29:41] option or some other. So
[29:42] Alexa, if you could go ahead
[29:44] and start that poll. I think
[29:48] this is an. It is in a Zoom
[29:51] poll. So what we can do is
[29:55] for the, for the four members
[29:57] in the room,
[29:58] maybe we could just do kind
[29:59] of a verbal.
[30:04] >> So those online are asked
[30:06] to complete the Zoom poll and
[30:09] then we're going
[30:10] to do the others. Unless you've
[30:12] got Zoom open or not.
[30:15] Probably not.
[30:16] >> So you can either just let
[30:18] us know in the room or you can
[30:19] also email me separately.
[30:21] >> But the questions there.
[30:24] >> So yeah, basically. Yeah,
[30:25] it's. Basically the first
[30:26] question is regarding the
[30:27] voting seats. Do you prefer to
[30:28] keep the seats as they are or
[30:29] are you interested
[30:31] in discussing an alternative?
[30:33] And then the same question
[30:34] for the non voting seats.
[30:38] >> All right,
[30:40] I'll let folks online vote.
[30:41] Deputy Mayor Arnold?
[30:42] >> Yeah. Interested
[30:43] in discussing both topics.
[30:44] >> Christine. Puget Sound
[30:48] Clean Air Agency is a
[30:49] non-voting member.
[30:51] So we're here for however we
[30:52] can be helpful.
[30:55] >> Councilmember Schneider, how
[30:56] do you feel
[30:57] about this?
[30:59] >> I don't feel like I really
[31:00] have enough background. It
[31:02] seems like it's not going
[31:04] to affect Kitsap County. Is
[31:05] that true? Okay, thank you. It
[31:08] does not. Sorry, I didn't turn
[31:10] my microphone on. So
[31:13] at least you're open
[31:14] to discussion. Anyway, it
[31:17] appears.
[31:20] >> And Alexa, should I end?
[31:24] >> Yeah, let's go ahead and do
[31:25] that.
[31:30] >> So it looks like 63% on the
[31:34] first question are interested
[31:36] in discussing and 56% also
[31:39] interested in discussing the
[31:40] second question. Looks like
[31:44] further discussion is needed.
[31:48] >> Perfect. So we will take
[31:49] this short poll and again,
[31:51] if there are any initial
[31:53] feedback, please feel free to
[31:56] Share that or send us an email.
[31:57] But we will take all
[31:58] of this feedback
[31:59] to the next meeting of the ad
[32:00] hoc committee and we'll go from
[32:02] there. I beg your pardon? I do.
[32:06] I almost forgot. We did get an
[32:07] email and I promised
[32:09] to share that. Council member
[32:11] King County Councilmember
[32:13] Barone was not able to attend
[32:14] today and he did send us an
[32:15] email. And the overall message
[32:19] that he. He was saying is that
[32:21] he thinks it's important that
[32:25] no entity loses representation.
[32:28] It's critical that we find a
[32:29] solution that ensures fair
[32:30] representation and balance
[32:32] for all the bodies represented
[32:33] at the PSRC without diluting
[32:35] anyone's voice. He does not
[32:36] support moving forward
[32:38] with the options currently
[32:39] under consideration and
[32:40] suggests that we just simply
[32:42] need more time to consider the
[32:44] proposals and give members the
[32:45] opportunity to better
[32:47] understand perspective. So
[32:49] essentially advocating
[32:51] for some additional time. So we
[32:52] will also share that
[32:53] with the ad hoc committee.
[32:55] >> Deputy Mayor Arnold, are you
[32:56] looking
[32:57] for feedback right now? If we
[32:58] have it?
[32:59] If you have it, happy
[33:00] to take it now.
[33:01] We're also happy if you want
[33:02] to send it.
[33:03] Responding to the email,
[33:04] that was okay.
[33:06] >> Well, very briefly,
[33:07] just thinking
[33:08] about other towns in King
[33:09] county within sound cities,
[33:11] just that there are a variety
[33:13] of different needs and
[33:14] perspectives in the discussions
[33:15] that we have had. And when you
[33:17] look at the breakdown
[33:20] of cities above 80,000 and
[33:22] below that we're talking about,
[33:24] this proposal would have only
[33:25] one seat
[33:26] for the cities below. And
[33:28] for many
[33:31] of the things that we do here
[33:33] in looking at plan eligibility
[33:36] criteria and things
[33:37] like that,
[33:38] there's a vast amount
[33:39] of differences
[33:40] in needs and resources
[33:41] available
[33:42] for the smaller cities. And so
[33:44] it's going to be important
[33:45] for them to have a voice. And
[33:47] we've got concerns
[33:48] of only one vote
[33:50] for all the cities
[33:56] in the other towns of King
[33:57] counties at that size.
[33:59] >> Thank you. Appreciate that
[34:00] feedback.
[34:03] >> Other comments and Kelly,
[34:05] of course,
[34:06] welcomes and we all do the.
[34:07] And email back also
[34:10] with your feedback
[34:12] to the email that was sent out.
[34:16] Okay. We ready
[34:17] to move on?
[34:18] >> Yes.
[34:19] >> To our next discussion item,
[34:20] which is the Regional
[34:21] Comprehensive Climate Action
[34:23] Plan. And Sarah Hetrick is
[34:26] going to present that.
[34:31] >> Good morning all. Thank you
[34:32] for having me. I'll just share
[34:34] my screen. So this morning I'm
[34:42] really looking forward
[34:44] to sharing an update
[34:45] with you all on the Puget
[34:46] Sound region's draft
[34:48] Comprehensive Climate Action
[34:49] Plan. So briefly, here are the
[34:53] topics that I'm going
[34:54] to cover today. First, I'm
[34:56] going to provide you
[34:57] with an overview of the
[34:58] Climate Pollution Reduction
[35:00] Grant Port program as well as
[35:01] the agency's role. I'm going to
[35:02] discuss the partners that we've
[35:03] worked with to develop the
[35:04] draft climate plan and share
[35:07] opportunities for public input
[35:08] using our online engagement
[35:10] hub. I'm then going to discuss
[35:11] the plan's emission reduction
[35:13] analysis,
[35:14] including a high level overview
[35:17] of the climate strategies that
[35:18] are in the plan,
[35:19] and really how to understand
[35:21] each strategy's emission
[35:22] reduction potential. And then
[35:24] finally, we're going to end
[35:25] with an opportunity
[35:26] for you all to ask questions.
[35:30] So by way of some background,
[35:32] in 2023, the agency received a
[35:33] grant from the federal
[35:35] Climate Pollution Reduction
[35:36] Grant Program
[35:38] to lead climate action planning
[35:39] for the Seattle, Tacoma,
[35:40] Bellevue Metropolitan
[35:41] Statistical Area, which covers
[35:43] King, Pierce and Snohomish
[35:45] counties.
[35:47] But it was incredibly important
[35:48] to the agency that the climate
[35:49] plan was really truly regional
[35:51] in nature. And so we worked
[35:53] with EPA
[35:54] to actually expand the coverage
[35:55] of the plan
[35:56] to include all four counties
[35:57] in the Puget Sound region. So
[35:59] that includes Kitsap County.
[36:02] So this climate plan must be
[36:03] completed and submitted to EPA
[36:04] by December of this year. So
[36:10] here we can see the primary
[36:11] goals of the climate plan. So
[36:12] first, we want to create that
[36:14] long term regional climate plan
[36:16] to achieve our region's climate
[36:17] goals and help our region do
[36:20] its part to meet the state's
[36:21] climate goals. We want
[36:23] to ensure that we're aligning
[36:24] with and complementing state
[36:25] and local climate planning
[36:27] efforts. And importantly,
[36:29] we want to build and maintain
[36:31] the regional collaborations
[36:32] that are necessary for that
[36:33] collective climate action. So
[36:35] in doing so,
[36:37] our goal is really to make our
[36:38] region more competitive
[36:39] for grant applications to
[36:40] really increase that available
[36:42] climate funding
[36:43] to our region. And then, as
[36:45] always, we want to make sure
[36:46] that we're aligning priorities
[36:48] that foster equity
[36:49] across our region. So the
[36:52] purpose
[36:53] of this climate plan is to
[36:54] identify high impact regional
[36:55] strategies and actions
[36:56] to reduce climate emissions
[36:58] through those coordinated
[36:59] efforts with a focus
[37:01] on maximizing the benefits
[37:02] for overburdened communities.
[37:04] And the climate strategies that
[37:05] we've presented
[37:07] in this plan are
[37:08] in the draft plan, are built
[37:09] on years of emission analysis
[37:10] and public engagement here
[37:12] in the Puget Sound region. And
[37:15] they will also all the
[37:16] strategies be implemented
[37:17] at either the local,
[37:18] regional or state level. So a
[37:22] little
[37:23] about the agency's role. We are
[37:25] serving as the lead
[37:26] organization for the region's
[37:27] climate pollution reduction
[37:28] grant program. We are
[37:29] responsible for working with
[37:30] government partners and the
[37:32] communities we serve
[37:33] to develop this climate plan.
[37:35] So over the past two years,
[37:37] we work closely with the
[37:38] Washington Climate
[37:39] Partnership, which consists
[37:41] of state Departments of
[37:42] Ecology and Commerce,
[37:43] to really stay aligned
[37:44] with their efforts to develop
[37:46] the state's own comprehensive
[37:47] climate action plan
[37:48] under the CPRG program. We are
[37:49] Also coordinating
[37:52] with tribal grantees through
[37:53] the state's climate pollution
[37:54] reduction grant tribal work
[37:56] group. And
[37:58] of course we continue
[37:59] to coordinate closely with
[38:00] regional jurisdictions and
[38:01] partners like PSRC
[38:02] to stay aligned with local
[38:04] climate planning efforts,
[38:05] which are I think really
[38:07] in many ways the backbone
[38:08] of this regional climate plan.
[38:12] So here we have a list
[38:14] of just some of the many
[38:15] partners that we have worked
[38:16] with in developing the draft
[38:17] climate plan. So this includes
[38:18] cities and counties,
[38:19] subject matter experts
[38:21] across the region, utilities,
[38:23] transit providers, community
[38:25] organizations, ports,
[38:26] and as I previously mentioned,
[38:28] the Washington Climate
[38:29] Partnership. And then
[38:31] of course EPA region 10 state
[38:32] and tribal grantees. So let's
[38:37] briefly discuss what's included
[38:38] in the draft climate plan
[38:40] itself. So first we have some
[38:42] climate specific analyses. So
[38:43] this includes the greenhouse
[38:45] gas inventory for the four
[38:46] county region as well as
[38:48] emission projections and
[38:49] climate reduction targets
[38:50] for both the near term 2030 and
[38:52] longer term 2050 time frames.
[38:53] Importantly, it also includes a
[38:57] comprehensive list
[38:59] of strategies and actions to
[39:00] achieve these greenhouse gas
[39:02] reduction targets
[39:03] across all sectors
[39:04] of the region's economy. And
[39:07] later in this presentation
[39:08] we're actually going
[39:09] to discuss some of the specific
[39:10] emission reduction strategies.
[39:15] The draft climate plan also
[39:16] includes several other
[39:17] important analyses which are
[39:19] going to help make the plan
[39:20] strategies as actionable as
[39:21] possible for decision makers
[39:23] in our region. So in addition
[39:25] to estimating the emission
[39:27] reduction potential
[39:29] for each strategy, the plan
[39:30] also includes information
[39:31] on things like costs,
[39:33] potential funding sources and
[39:34] co benefits, again
[39:36] with a focus on overburdened
[39:37] communities as well as an
[39:38] understanding of workforce
[39:41] development implications
[39:42] for implementation
[39:44] of the strategies.
[39:45] Importantly, it also identifies
[39:47] some of the strategies that are
[39:48] well posed
[39:50] for regional implementation.
[39:51] And so the goal of this
[39:53] additional information is
[39:54] really
[39:56] to provide jurisdictions
[39:57] in our region
[39:58] with the information they need
[39:59] to make these effective climate
[40:00] planning decisions and
[40:01] investments. And so it's our
[40:03] ultimate goal that local and
[40:05] regional governments are going
[40:06] to refer
[40:07] to this climate plan regularly
[40:08] over the coming years as they
[40:10] prioritize, select and
[40:12] implement climate strategies
[40:14] and actions in our own
[40:15] jurisdictions. I'll also
[40:20] mention here that we are
[40:21] at the very beginning of a
[40:23] three week public input period
[40:24] for the draft climate plan.
[40:26] This public input period
[40:27] actually began just a few days
[40:29] ago on October 6th and ends
[40:30] on October 26th. So
[40:31] to solicit public feedback, we
[40:35] developed an online engagement
[40:36] hub through the Conveyo
[40:38] platform, which some of you
[40:39] may be familiar with,
[40:41] but effect this. This platform
[40:43] allows folks to review the
[40:44] draft plan and comment
[40:45] on specific sections
[40:46] of the document. We just hosted
[40:48] a workshop this past Tuesday
[40:50] to kick off the public in input
[40:52] period and if you weren't able
[40:53] to join US. A recording
[40:54] of this workshop can be found
[40:56] on the online engagement hub.
[40:57] I'll also mention that the
[41:01] agency and regional partners
[41:02] held four workshops earlier
[41:03] this year in March and April
[41:05] to invite a first round
[41:08] of feedback on the draft
[41:09] climate strategies and actions.
[41:11] And then this draft plan also
[41:12] recently underwent technical
[41:14] review in July by our CPR
[41:17] Director Steering committee
[41:19] members, as well as technical
[41:20] work groups and state partners.
[41:22] And so all of this feedback has
[41:23] been incorporated into the
[41:24] draft plan that's available
[41:25] online right now. And so the
[41:28] link to that online engagement
[41:30] hub is here on this slide.
[41:32] Pscaa.conveyo.com we would love
[41:36] your help in promoting the
[41:38] public input period. We have a
[41:40] communications toolkit
[41:41] with example, social media
[41:43] posts, graphics, email
[41:44] language, things
[41:45] like that that we would be
[41:46] happy to share with this group
[41:48] so that you can help us get the
[41:50] word out to your networks and
[41:52] constituents. So what exactly
[41:57] what are we looking for
[41:59] from the public input period?
[42:00] Some types
[42:02] of input can be seen
[42:03] on this slide. So we're looking
[42:05] for things or areas that need
[42:07] clarification as well as ideas
[42:09] or considerations
[42:11] for strategy implementation.
[42:13] But I think importantly, this
[42:15] climate plan is really intended
[42:16] to serve as a guiding roadmap
[42:18] for local and regional
[42:19] governments
[42:21] to address climate change. And
[42:22] so with that in mind,
[42:23] we would really like to hear
[42:24] what information folks think is
[42:25] important to share with
[42:26] decision makers as they are
[42:28] prioritizing climate planning
[42:29] efforts and investments
[42:31] in their own jurisdictions. So
[42:37] before we discuss the draft
[42:38] plans emission reduction
[42:40] strategies, I just want to
[42:41] finish up this background
[42:43] section
[42:44] by sharing a high level
[42:46] timeline for development
[42:47] of this climate plan. So as I
[42:48] previously mentioned,
[42:49] technical review
[42:50] of the plan took place in
[42:52] July. Staff incorporated this
[42:53] feedback, the technical
[42:54] feedback that we heard in
[42:55] August, and we are now, as I
[42:57] mentioned, accepting additional
[42:58] public input on the draft plan
[43:00] through October 26th. We will
[43:03] incorporate any final edits
[43:05] into the climate plan this
[43:06] coming November, and then we
[43:08] will plan to submit the plan
[43:09] by the December 1st deadline.
[43:16] Okay, so now let's switch gears
[43:18] a little bit to get to sort
[43:19] of the meat of the plan,
[43:20] which is that list of emission
[43:22] reduction strategies that are
[43:23] going to help us
[43:24] to meet our climate targets.
[43:26] But before,
[43:27] before we do that,
[43:28] I think it's important
[43:29] to talk a little bit about what
[43:30] the plan's analysis does and
[43:31] does not do. So
[43:33] for each strategy
[43:34] in the plan, we calculate the
[43:35] emission reduction potential,
[43:36] or gap, which effectively is
[43:40] the difference between the
[43:41] current greenhouse gas
[43:42] emissions and the 2030
[43:44] reduction target. So in order
[43:46] to do this, staff estimated the
[43:47] maximum potential climate
[43:49] impact of each strategy. And
[43:51] really we assume the largest
[43:53] realistic scale
[43:55] of action possible. So we did
[43:56] this for each sector
[43:58] until the gap to 2030 or 2050
[43:59] is approximately closed. I want
[44:05] to, I think it's important to
[44:07] note that the emission
[44:08] reduction estimates are not,
[44:09] they're not planned,
[44:11] they're not predictions, and
[44:12] they importantly do not specify
[44:13] policy mechanisms or
[44:14] responsible parties. For each
[44:15] strategy implementation,
[44:21] we do provide a list
[44:22] of actions which are sort
[44:23] of examples of policies or
[44:24] programs that could reduce
[44:26] greenhouse gas emissions and
[44:27] furtherance of the strategy or
[44:28] enhance carbon sinks. And we
[44:30] also provide other information.
[44:33] As I mentioned,
[44:35] this could include things
[44:36] like estimated cost per ton
[44:38] of emissions reduced,
[44:39] as well as information
[44:41] on CO benefits. So with all
[44:43] of this in mind, I just wanted
[44:44] to be clear that the main goal
[44:46] of this analysis is to help
[44:48] decision makers see which
[44:49] strategies can help contribute
[44:50] most to meeting our region's
[44:51] climate goals. This plan is not
[44:53] an implementation plan, and
[44:55] implementation considerations
[44:58] are going to need
[44:59] to be identified as part
[45:01] of future planning phases
[45:02] for climate action
[45:04] in our region. So
[45:09] for those who are visual
[45:10] like me,
[45:11] this chart which is included
[45:12] in the plan presents, I think,
[45:14] a nice summary of the analysis
[45:15] that we conducted. So the top
[45:18] pink shading that you can see
[45:19] in this bar chart represents
[45:21] the existing policies
[45:23] to reduce emissions. And then
[45:24] if you go to the bottom
[45:26] of this chart, that gray shaded
[45:27] area represents the remaining
[45:28] emissions that are allowed
[45:30] under that 2030 target. So the
[45:33] middle shading here,
[45:35] that multicolored shading,
[45:37] really represents that gap
[45:38] to the 2030 target. And as you
[45:41] can see, it is broken up by
[45:42] each major sector's relative
[45:43] contribution
[45:45] to reducing emissions
[45:46] to reaching that goal. So the
[45:51] estimated maximum potential of
[45:52] each strategy that I previously
[45:54] mentioned is effectively
[45:55] staff's assume largest
[45:57] realistic scale of action. And
[45:59] those are listed in the call
[46:00] out box that we see here
[46:01] to the right. So you can see
[46:04] specific assumptions
[46:05] for the built environment
[46:06] in yellow, for industry here
[46:09] in brown, for transportation
[46:12] in blue, for refrigerants
[46:16] in that purple color,
[46:17] for waste, the waste sector
[46:19] in gray, and then land use
[46:22] in teal. So here we have that
[46:28] same bar chart for 2050. And
[46:30] like before, all
[46:31] of the assumptions
[46:32] in the analysis are
[46:34] in that call out box
[46:35] to the right. And collectively,
[46:37] again, all of these help
[46:38] to close that gap to the 2050
[46:40] target. So for example, for
[46:43] 2030, in the last slide,
[46:45] we assumed that 900,000 homes
[46:46] were going to be weatherized.
[46:49] But for 2050, we now assume
[46:50] that 2.4 million homes would
[46:52] need to be weatherized to meet
[46:54] that goal. I'll also just
[46:57] mention here that right now the
[46:59] draft plan does include a more
[47:00] detailed analysis of for the
[47:02] for meeting that 2030 target.
[47:04] However, we do anticipate
[47:05] including a similar analysis
[47:08] for 2050
[47:10] in that final climate plan.
[47:14] Okay, so all of that is some
[47:16] additional context.
[47:17] But now I do want to dive into
[47:18] the emission reduction
[47:20] strategies themselves. I'm
[47:22] going
[47:23] to provide some example actions
[47:24] for implementation and again
[47:25] discuss the assumptions that
[47:27] were used in the analysis for
[47:28] 2030. I'll just mention I'm
[47:31] only going to cover a few
[47:32] of the strategies
[47:33] for each sector,
[47:34] but the full list
[47:36] of strategies can be found in
[47:37] the draft climate plan that we
[47:39] have online. So here we can see
[47:43] a total of three of the eight
[47:45] of the climate strategies that
[47:47] are available
[47:48] for the built environment. So
[47:50] 1.1 is to build low carbon new
[47:52] buildings. So some example
[47:54] actions include strengthening
[47:56] building codes or providing
[47:58] education and outreach
[47:59] for developers and builders.
[48:01] And then again, this assumption
[48:03] is that the vast majority of
[48:05] new housing units that are
[48:07] built in the region have fully
[48:08] non greenhouse gas emitting
[48:11] space and water heating
[48:14] systems. Our next strategy
[48:16] example is
[48:17] to reduce energy use
[48:19] in existing buildings. So this
[48:20] is through things
[48:21] like weatherization programs,
[48:22] upgrading appliances,
[48:23] appliances upgrading lighting,
[48:24] supporting utility demand
[48:26] response programs, things
[48:27] like that. And the assumptions
[48:28] are here in the last column
[48:30] which assumes that 900,000
[48:33] homes are weatherized, 1
[48:35] million appliance, 10 million
[48:36] appliances are upgraded.
[48:37] Excuse me. And 5 million light
[48:39] bulbs are changed out. Last we
[48:42] have 1.3 as an example,
[48:43] electrify or decarbonize
[48:45] existing buildings. So this is
[48:47] things
[48:48] like electrifying a appliances,
[48:49] developing renewable
[48:52] electricity and battery storage
[48:53] systems, or developing building
[48:54] emission performance standards
[48:56] or building decarbonization
[48:58] plans. And so this assumption
[49:00] is that 800,000 residential
[49:02] dwelling units and 100,000
[49:03] residential water heaters are
[49:05] converted to electric along
[49:07] with the entire commercial
[49:09] water heater heating sector.
[49:14] So now let's move on
[49:15] to transportation. And again
[49:16] here we have three
[49:17] of the total
[49:18] of eight strategies
[49:20] to give you an example
[49:21] for the transportation sector.
[49:23] So 2.1 is to reduce the vehicle
[49:25] miles traveled for
[49:26] on road passenger gas vehicles.
[49:31] And so example ways to do this
[49:32] would be implementing
[49:34] continuing to implement transit
[49:35] oriented compact growth and
[49:37] development,
[49:38] developing a congestion pricing
[49:40] program, things like that. And
[49:42] the assumptions here are that
[49:43] VMT each year was reduced by
[49:44] 1.1 billion miles,
[49:46] which does account
[49:47] for approximately 4%
[49:48] of the annual total. Another
[49:50] example strategy here is
[49:51] to increase sales of on road
[49:53] passenger electric vehicles and
[49:55] promote low carbon alternative
[49:57] vehicles. So things like
[49:59] supporting charging
[50:01] infrastructure electrifying
[50:03] fleets and then supporting EV
[50:05] car sharing programs. And so
[50:08] for this assumption we assume
[50:10] that the ED adoption rate
[50:12] occurred one year quicker One
[50:13] year ahead
[50:15] of the current projected ramp,
[50:18] above and beyond the state's
[50:19] current ZEV mandate. So that's
[50:21] approximately 137,000
[50:22] additional electric vehicles
[50:24] on the road, or approximately
[50:26] 780,000 in total. Lastly, we
[50:29] have the strategy to electrify
[50:31] or reduce the carbon intensity
[50:33] of on road medium and heavy
[50:34] duty vehicles. And so here
[50:38] example actions are
[50:40] to support the electrification
[50:41] of public and private fleets,
[50:43] supporting the state's advanced
[50:45] clean trucks and advanced clean
[50:47] fleet rules, and supporting
[50:49] charging infrastructure. And
[50:51] here we assume that 15,000
[50:52] heavy duty electric vehicles
[50:54] are on the road and 15 million
[50:55] gallons
[50:57] of lower carbon fuels are used.
[51:00] So here we have the solid waste
[51:02] and wastewater sector. So we
[51:04] have three of the four total
[51:06] reduction strategies shown
[51:08] here. First is to divert
[51:11] construction and demolition
[51:12] materials from landfills. And
[51:13] this assumes 30,000 additional
[51:16] tons of both steel and wood are
[51:17] diverted. Another strategy is
[51:20] to divert other types of
[51:21] recyclable and compostable
[51:22] materials from landfills. So
[51:25] this assumes that 156,000
[51:27] additional tons
[51:28] of general waste and 90,000
[51:29] tons of organic waste are being
[51:31] diverted by 2030. Again, this
[51:32] is an analysis for 2030. And
[51:34] then another strategy,
[51:37] for example is
[51:38] to increase methane capture at
[51:40] landfills. I'll also just
[51:43] mention here that we did
[51:45] identify two additional
[51:46] strategies
[51:47] for the consumption sector.
[51:48] And these effectively relate to
[51:51] reducing the food waste and
[51:52] promoting low emission dietary
[51:54] choices as well as promoting
[51:56] circular economies
[51:57] for general goods. And while
[52:00] these are very important,
[52:01] they're very complex to
[52:03] calculate when you're thinking
[52:06] about consumption based
[52:07] emissions. And so we don't
[52:09] actually quantify these
[52:10] in our climate plan,
[52:12] but they are there. Next, let's
[52:15] move on
[52:17] to the land use sector. And
[52:19] here are the two main
[52:20] strategies that we have
[52:21] included
[52:22] in the clinical climate plans.
[52:23] First, we have stewarding
[52:24] natural lands
[52:25] to reduce tree loss. And
[52:26] Effectively this assumes 50
[52:27] million new trees are planted.
[52:29] And then strategy 4.2,
[52:31] stewarding natural lands to
[52:33] increase that carbon
[52:35] sequestration and reduce
[52:36] emissions. What this assumption
[52:37] is that 50,000 hectares of land
[52:39] are protected or otherwise
[52:41] enhanced
[52:43] to stop that carbon loss. And
[52:49] then we get
[52:50] to our final sector here,
[52:52] which is refrigerants. And here
[52:54] are both of the strategies that
[52:55] we have identified
[52:56] for this sector. The first is
[52:57] to reduce the use of those high
[53:00] global warming potential
[53:01] devices as well as increasing
[53:03] the recovery of the high global
[53:04] warming potential refrigerants
[53:06] they use. And this assumes that
[53:08] 100,000 devices have been
[53:11] replaced with zero or low
[53:15] global warming potential
[53:16] devices and that 100,000 old
[53:18] devices with high global
[53:21] warming potential refrigerants
[53:23] have had those refrigerants
[53:25] recovered. And then last, we
[53:27] have reducing refrigerant leaks
[53:29] from the commercial and
[53:31] industrial systems. And that
[53:33] assumes an additional 10,000
[53:35] systems are inspected and leaks
[53:37] are repaired. So again, that
[53:42] presents a very high level
[53:44] overview of the emission
[53:45] reduction strategies that are
[53:46] contained in our current draft
[53:48] climate plan. I'm going
[53:50] to be happy to take questions
[53:51] in just a second, but
[53:52] before I do, I just wanted to
[53:53] briefly mention the other
[53:54] discussions and analyses that
[53:56] are in this draft plan that
[53:59] contain important information,
[54:00] again, you know, for decision
[54:02] makers and jurisdictions
[54:03] to think about when they're
[54:04] undertaking climate planning
[54:06] moving forward. So these
[54:08] analyses include, or
[54:10] discussions include
[54:13] implementation considerations,
[54:14] again, which is a future phase
[54:16] in this effort, as well as
[54:17] important utility
[54:19] considerations. They are a huge
[54:20] partner, obviously,
[54:22] in climate planning. We have a
[54:24] benefit analysis with a focus
[54:26] on our region's overburdened
[54:28] communities that talks
[54:29] about co benefits,
[54:31] for example, air quality,
[54:33] quality improvements
[54:34] from climate actions, and then
[54:35] a workforce development
[54:37] analysis which helps us
[54:38] to understand the workforce
[54:40] sort of planning needs that are
[54:42] associated with a sort
[54:44] of clean economy transition.
[54:48] And then lastly,
[54:49] we also have a brief
[54:50] discussion, a broad discussion,
[54:51] excuse me, of next steps
[54:53] for climate planning processes
[54:55] for our region. So that does
[55:01] conclude my slides. I want to
[55:04] make sure that you all have my
[55:06] contact information here and
[55:08] just mention that you can all
[55:10] stay in touch with us at the
[55:12] agency and the draft climate
[55:15] plan
[55:16] through our CPRG listserv,
[55:17] which you can access
[55:19] on the site at the URL shown
[55:22] on this slide, please.
[55:26] >> Thank you, Sarah. A lot of
[55:27] great information there. I see.
[55:29] Council member Daugherty,
[55:33] you got your hand raised. You
[55:34] have a question?
[55:36] >> Yes, thank you, Sarah.
[55:37] Thank you
[55:39] for the presentation. Can I'd
[55:40] like to ask who did the
[55:41] technical review?
[55:44] >> So our technical review was
[55:45] done
[55:46] by our CPRG steering committee,
[55:47] technical work groups,
[55:49] as well as our state partners.
[55:51] So we have a CPRG steering
[55:53] committee that we've been
[55:54] working with
[55:55] for the past two years,
[55:57] of which Kelly McGurdy is a
[55:59] participant. And so that is a
[56:03] group that consists
[56:05] of representatives
[56:06] from all four counties in the
[56:07] region as well as major cities.
[56:09] And then we have, I believe,
[56:12] five technical work groups. So
[56:14] that includes subject matter
[56:16] experts across the region
[56:18] from built environment,
[56:20] transportation and consumption
[56:21] and waste,
[56:23] as well as equity and workforce
[56:24] development, excuse me,
[56:26] and utilities. So there are
[56:28] six, and then again our state
[56:29] partners at the Washington
[56:30] Climate Partnership. So that's
[56:32] ecology and commerce.
[56:35] >> And where does the data come
[56:36] from that you're making
[56:37] decisions on?
[56:38] >> Yeah, so it has been sort
[56:39] of a lot of different places.
[56:43] So we have our technical folks
[56:45] at the agency who, you know,
[56:48] we're really responsible for
[56:49] putting this analysis together.
[56:51] We've had lots
[56:53] of conversations
[56:54] about what assumptions to put
[56:56] into this analysis. And as I
[56:58] mentioned, you know,
[57:00] I think we are really looking
[57:03] to folks to help us refine and
[57:05] enhance the assumptions to make
[57:07] this plan as actionable as
[57:09] possible. So I think that's
[57:11] part of this public input
[57:13] period is kind of looking to
[57:16] refine those assumptions.
[57:19] >> Okay, thank you.
[57:22] >> And I would just jump in and
[57:23] say I have been hyping this
[57:25] document for quite some time
[57:27] now and I'm super excited that
[57:29] it's finally here. And
[57:30] Council Member Daughtry
[57:31] to your point, Sarah, correct
[57:33] me if I'm wrong, but this isn't
[57:34] a decision document. This is a
[57:36] document that's really trying
[57:37] to identify what is it going
[57:39] to take to achieve the goals
[57:41] that we have. We get that
[57:42] question a lot. And you know,
[57:43] here at PSRC and our,
[57:45] my fingers are definitely all
[57:46] over this thing. So we,
[57:47] everything that we do and the
[57:48] analysis on our Vision 2050 and
[57:51] Regional Transportation plan is
[57:52] certainly fed into that.
[57:53] But we share with you,
[57:55] if we're doing these types
[57:58] of things,
[57:59] what are the emission results?
[58:00] And this document is really
[58:01] looking at, given all
[58:02] of that,
[58:03] if there's still a gap
[58:04] to the target,
[58:05] what will it take? And so that
[58:06] list
[58:07] of strategies is really kind
[58:08] of the best,
[58:10] the best estimate based on
[58:12] everything we know and
[58:13] projections into the future
[58:14] about if we want
[58:15] to achieve the goals. We have
[58:16] to do all
[58:17] of these different things
[58:18] across all of these sectors,
[58:19] but not a decision,
[58:22] but really it's just
[58:23] information
[58:24] on what it will take. Sarah,
[58:25] did I get that right?
[58:26] >> You nailed it. Yeah.
[58:27] Thanks, Kelly. And as I
[58:29] mentioned earlier, it does not
[58:32] assign specific policy
[58:33] mechanisms or responsible
[58:37] jurisdictions or anything
[58:39] like that. We wanted
[58:41] to provide decision makers
[58:43] with the information
[58:45] to make decisions that are
[58:46] right for their jurisdiction.
[58:47] And so we provide example
[58:49] strategy,
[58:52] example policies and things
[58:53] like that,
[58:54] but they are not prescriptive.
[58:55] Again, it's really the largest
[58:56] realistic scale of action that
[58:59] we think is possible
[59:03] for each strategy.
[59:05] >> Well, the only reason I'm
[59:06] asking is the best available
[59:08] science on climate change is
[59:09] changing constantly. Recently
[59:13] they have finally figured
[59:14] out what some of us in the
[59:16] science community know is the
[59:17] carbon CO2 only has a certain
[59:20] effect and we've already passed
[59:21] that certain effect and has no
[59:23] more effect on climate change
[59:24] that's recently come
[59:26] to light. So with the best
[59:29] available science,
[59:30] the same thing that happens in
[59:31] our biologies or streams and
[59:33] stuff, but the best available
[59:35] science is continually changing
[59:37] and then it continually gets
[59:39] into our policies and
[59:41] procedures. At that point which
[59:43] ultimately makes everything
[59:45] more expensive to get down,
[59:46] right down to the bottom line
[59:47] of it. And so I just caution
[59:49] ourselves to understand where
[59:53] these policies are coming
[59:55] from and who is directing based
[59:56] on the best available science.
[59:59] That's changing constantly.
[1:00:03] >> Okay, we're going to move
[1:00:05] on to Councilmember Walker.
[1:00:07] You have your hand raised.
[1:00:09] >> Thank you, Sarah. Thank you
[1:00:11] for all this great work and all
[1:00:13] the great information. I have
[1:00:15] not spent very much time
[1:00:16] digging into it, so I may ask a
[1:00:18] question that I just haven't
[1:00:20] dug far enough in.
[1:00:22] But my question is around the
[1:00:23] land use strategies and I was
[1:00:25] surprised not to see anything
[1:00:27] on there about zoning. And
[1:00:29] that's. I think land use
[1:00:31] transportation, we talk
[1:00:32] about that all the time. How we
[1:00:33] zone our cities for buildings
[1:00:37] and roads makes a huge
[1:00:38] difference in our ability then
[1:00:40] to conserve open space and
[1:00:43] plant more trees. And I'm
[1:00:44] curious if there's something
[1:00:45] more because I know you do
[1:00:47] mention zoning,
[1:00:48] but it's specific to zoning
[1:00:49] for trees. Is there anything
[1:00:51] in that category about zoning
[1:00:53] for buildings and
[1:00:55] transportation or what? I find
[1:00:56] that deep in the transportation
[1:00:58] section and the built
[1:00:59] environment section. But I
[1:01:01] didn't really see that
[1:01:02] specifically. And I just want
[1:01:03] to be a broken record about
[1:01:04] land use and transportation
[1:01:06] always going hand
[1:01:07] in hand and get through one
[1:01:08] without the other. Thank you.
[1:01:10] >> So that is captured in the
[1:01:13] transportation sector
[1:01:14] strategies, if memory serves.
[1:01:17] 2.1 is where we talk
[1:01:18] about reducing VMT. And so that
[1:01:21] is where those zoning changes
[1:01:24] come in as example actions and
[1:01:25] strategies. So that is where
[1:01:29] those are captured. Land use, I
[1:01:32] think we're really specifically
[1:01:33] talking about natural and
[1:01:34] working lands is kind
[1:01:36] of what we were thinking
[1:01:37] of when we were talking
[1:01:38] about land use.
[1:01:39] But what you are talking
[1:01:41] about is included in the
[1:01:42] transportation sector
[1:01:44] strategies.
[1:01:49] >> Other questions or comments?
[1:01:53] In the room?
[1:01:56] And I don't see any hands
[1:01:57] raised. So I think we're going
[1:01:58] to move on
[1:01:59] to our next discussion item.
[1:02:00] Actually it's an action item.
[1:02:03] >> Thank you.
[1:02:04] >> So our next item is the
[1:02:06] regional transportation plan
[1:02:07] scenario decision. And Kelly
[1:02:08] and Craig, that's you.
[1:02:11] >> Yes. And Sarah, thank you so
[1:02:12] much for the presentation. And
[1:02:14] just to close that out,
[1:02:16] we are certainly now that it is
[1:02:18] out and the timing is
[1:02:20] December, we will definitely be
[1:02:21] talking in the RTP about how
[1:02:23] our two documents fit together.
[1:02:28] We are ahead of schedule,
[1:02:29] which is great. Which means
[1:02:30] we've got a lot more time
[1:02:31] to talk about RTP. So we are
[1:02:34] here. We did warn you last
[1:02:36] month that we are here
[1:02:39] to get a, an action from you
[1:02:41] to identify kind of that final
[1:02:42] scenarios that we could move
[1:02:44] forward into developing the
[1:02:45] regional transportation plan.
[1:02:46] So we're going to just walk
[1:02:47] through a few quick background.
[1:02:49] I know we've been,
[1:02:51] you have all been
[1:02:52] on this journey with us.
[1:02:53] But a short reminder on the
[1:02:54] scenario development process.
[1:02:55] We do want
[1:02:56] to share the public feedback
[1:02:57] to date
[1:02:58] with you and I just want
[1:02:59] to acknowledge we have had
[1:03:00] three out of the six public
[1:03:02] meetings so far. We've had
[1:03:03] surveys, we've had done a lot
[1:03:05] of other interviews. Public
[1:03:07] engagement is going
[1:03:08] to continue even up to the
[1:03:10] point where we release the
[1:03:12] draft plan. But we are at a
[1:03:13] moment right now where we do
[1:03:15] need this decision point so we
[1:03:16] can develop the draft plan. But
[1:03:17] we will have that constant
[1:03:18] feedback scenario and share
[1:03:20] that information with you.
[1:03:21] We'll do a quick reminder of
[1:03:23] the scenario analysis and some
[1:03:25] additional metrics that we
[1:03:26] included in the packet based
[1:03:28] on feedback
[1:03:29] from the last meeting. There is
[1:03:30] a requested project correction.
[1:03:32] It was brought up at the last
[1:03:34] meeting and I'll walk through
[1:03:35] that again this morning. And
[1:03:36] then really we want to hear
[1:03:37] from you and hone in
[1:03:38] on that final,
[1:03:41] final scenario. And I have
[1:03:42] brought my phone
[1:03:43] of friends again
[1:03:44] for our next two topics.
[1:03:45] Craig Hellman and Ben Vacanta
[1:03:48] is at the table with me. So
[1:03:49] this is not new. You have seen
[1:03:50] this before. As a reminder we
[1:03:51] had our four scenarios, our
[1:03:53] four plan scenarios that ran
[1:03:54] the gamut of different levels
[1:03:58] of funding source, new funding
[1:03:59] sources that might be required,
[1:04:01] new revenues,
[1:04:03] new as well as different
[1:04:04] Councilmember Schneider
[1:04:05] mentioned them,
[1:04:06] different levers
[1:04:07] of investment. And based
[1:04:08] on the we did a poll
[1:04:10] at your meeting in September
[1:04:12] and from that poll the majority
[1:04:14] preference was leaning towards
[1:04:15] scenario 2B. And as a reminder
[1:04:19] this is what's
[1:04:20] in scenario 2B. So we looked
[1:04:22] at for those larger scale
[1:04:24] regional capacity projects
[1:04:26] looking at only looking
[1:04:28] at those that will start
[1:04:29] before 2040. And as my never
[1:04:30] ending reminder we develop a
[1:04:31] new plan every 4 years. This
[1:04:34] not a one and done proposition.
[1:04:36] There were a lot
[1:04:38] of programmatic improvements.
[1:04:40] So these are more local
[1:04:41] localized investments things
[1:04:42] that are off the regional
[1:04:44] system or they're not changing
[1:04:45] capacity
[1:04:46] of the regional system. With
[1:04:47] updated planning documents
[1:04:48] there is a quite a vast amount
[1:04:50] of need that had been
[1:04:52] identified not able
[1:04:54] to be fully funded. And so
[1:04:55] scenario 2B said we are going
[1:04:56] to assume that 70% of all
[1:04:59] of those needs could be funded
[1:05:00] with this
[1:05:01] through this planning. But
[1:05:02] importantly this was the kind
[1:05:05] of the board crafted scenario
[1:05:07] where even with all
[1:05:09] of that they want to maximize
[1:05:10] our maintenance and
[1:05:12] preservation levels and
[1:05:14] maximize our assumed increase
[1:05:15] in local transit service growth
[1:05:17] at 2% per year. And with all of
[1:05:18] those investments it would
[1:05:20] require just under $49 billion
[1:05:22] of new revenues
[1:05:24] to be identified. So this was
[1:05:25] the scenario that was kind
[1:05:27] of leading the charge in
[1:05:28] September. So I do want
[1:05:32] to pivot a little bit and share
[1:05:34] with you what we've heard
[1:05:35] from the feedback
[1:05:36] from our public meetings,
[1:05:37] which has been very consistent
[1:05:38] with what we've been hearing
[1:05:39] around this table. So we've had
[1:05:40] three
[1:05:41] of them and we've had a number
[1:05:42] of elected officials,
[1:05:43] including board members,
[1:05:44] attend those. So thank you
[1:05:45] to all of you that have been
[1:05:46] attending. It has been very
[1:05:48] much appreciated. And we have
[1:05:49] three more coming up next week
[1:05:51] in Tacoma, the week after in
[1:05:53] Tukwila, and then our last one
[1:05:54] in Bremerton. And it's been,
[1:05:59] it's. They've been really
[1:06:00] valuable public meetings.
[1:06:02] We've had over 170 people show
[1:06:04] up to the three that we've held
[1:06:06] so far. And as we walked them
[1:06:07] through, it's been a very
[1:06:09] engaging and interactive
[1:06:11] process. So when folks come
[1:06:13] into the room, we have stations
[1:06:15] set up and we ask them to, at
[1:06:16] that point we give them
[1:06:18] information on what's in the
[1:06:21] regional transportation plan,
[1:06:23] what is their preferred mode
[1:06:24] of travel, talking
[1:06:26] about the investments, and then
[1:06:28] we do put the four scenarios
[1:06:31] in front
[1:06:33] of them and we ask them at that
[1:06:35] stage what is their preference.
[1:06:36] But then we gather everybody.
[1:06:37] After that we have table
[1:06:38] discussions and each table
[1:06:40] talks through the different
[1:06:41] scenarios and comes up
[1:06:42] with a consensus
[1:06:43] for each table. And so these
[1:06:44] percentages is a culmination
[1:06:45] of all
[1:06:46] of those table discussions
[1:06:47] at each
[1:06:48] of the three public meetings.
[1:06:50] And as you can see,
[1:06:51] Interestingly enough,
[1:06:52] scenario 2B is still kind of
[1:06:53] leading the leading preference
[1:06:56] from the members of the public
[1:06:57] that we've heard so far as
[1:06:59] well. And we wanted to share
[1:07:01] with you. This is this, these
[1:07:02] are paraphrased and there are
[1:07:04] certainly many more comments.
[1:07:06] And we are gathering all of
[1:07:07] that and we will certainly
[1:07:08] share that and publish it when
[1:07:09] the draft plan comes out. But
[1:07:11] there were some key quotes that
[1:07:12] we thought we would share that
[1:07:14] just kind of gave the flavor
[1:07:15] of the conversation. And so
[1:07:16] I'll just read
[1:07:17] through these fairly quickly.
[1:07:19] One, we did ask folks to share
[1:07:20] with us information
[1:07:21] on both their priorities
[1:07:23] in terms of infrastructure, but
[1:07:24] also how they feel the system
[1:07:25] is doing. I think mostly we
[1:07:28] heard roads are failing, but
[1:07:30] interestingly we also heard
[1:07:31] very much an acknowledgement
[1:07:32] that the roads support all
[1:07:35] of the other modes. The roads
[1:07:37] support transit, they support
[1:07:38] bikes,
[1:07:39] they support sidewalks. A lot
[1:07:40] of interest
[1:07:41] in prioritizing transit. So
[1:07:42] that came out very clearly and
[1:07:44] I thought this quote was great.
[1:07:46] Transit should be prioritized
[1:07:48] because it serves everybody
[1:07:49] regardless of income.
[1:07:51] But again, acknowledging that
[1:07:52] buses cannot run where there
[1:07:53] are bad roads. So feeding into
[1:07:55] that maintenance and
[1:07:56] preservation theme, sidewalks
[1:07:58] are important because they
[1:07:59] address accessibility and help
[1:08:00] connect people to transit. And
[1:08:01] this one was very much what we,
[1:08:04] what we think about here at
[1:08:06] this table is new projects get
[1:08:07] a lot of attention,
[1:08:08] but we need more attention to
[1:08:09] maintenance. A few other quotes
[1:08:12] kind of acknowledging that the
[1:08:14] first two quotes here, there
[1:08:15] isn't enough infrastructure to
[1:08:17] serve everyone and housing
[1:08:18] growth is out outpacing
[1:08:20] transportation capacity. And
[1:08:22] then some interesting, you
[1:08:24] know,
[1:08:26] as the conversation flowed
[1:08:27] between whether it was scenario
[1:08:29] one, for example, which is just
[1:08:31] use existing sources versus the
[1:08:32] other scenarios which required
[1:08:33] new revenue,
[1:08:34] it was interesting
[1:08:35] to see that coalescing
[1:08:36] around the middle Scenarios and
[1:08:38] Scenario 2B and some comments
[1:08:41] about I don't mind being taxed,
[1:08:43] but I want it to go to
[1:08:44] dependable sources and people
[1:08:45] are willing to dig into their
[1:08:46] pocketbooks if they're,
[1:08:48] if they're going
[1:08:49] to see results. And then I
[1:08:51] think we've also talked
[1:08:52] at this table that as you move
[1:08:53] out from core areas,
[1:08:55] the quality and quantity
[1:08:56] of infrastructure declines. So
[1:08:59] some high level feedback from
[1:09:00] our really fabulous public
[1:09:02] meetings. But we've also been
[1:09:05] in front of our equity advisory
[1:09:07] committee. So we've had several
[1:09:09] presentations with them. But we
[1:09:10] had a very similar presentation
[1:09:12] to them last week. Their
[1:09:13] feedback is a little bit,
[1:09:16] a little bit different in that
[1:09:18] they are not surprisingly,
[1:09:20] really focused on accessibility
[1:09:21] and affordability. While some
[1:09:25] of them did express a
[1:09:26] preference for scenario tb,
[1:09:28] more of the EAC members
[1:09:30] expressed a preference for
[1:09:31] scenario one and it was really
[1:09:33] about the cost burden when it
[1:09:34] came down to it. So they very
[1:09:36] much acknowledge that
[1:09:37] additional infrastructure is
[1:09:38] certainly needed,
[1:09:39] but they're very much worried
[1:09:41] about the additional cost to
[1:09:42] households and acknowledging
[1:09:44] that the cost burdens not only
[1:09:45] will be,
[1:09:46] will not be equally distributed
[1:09:49] across households and
[1:09:50] communities, but some comments
[1:09:51] about the existing funding
[1:09:52] sources are not being equitably
[1:09:53] distributed and have an impact.
[1:09:55] A couple
[1:09:59] of paraphrased comments from
[1:10:00] the EAC members which were very
[1:10:02] helpful talking about this
[1:10:06] first comment is talking about,
[1:10:07] as we know, their displacement
[1:10:09] occurs and so folks have
[1:10:10] to move further away from where
[1:10:11] facilities are and they have
[1:10:13] to drive. And then if we're
[1:10:16] looking at new revenue sources
[1:10:17] that are increasing the gas
[1:10:18] tax, for example, the sentiment
[1:10:19] that it's further punishing
[1:10:21] those community members who
[1:10:22] have
[1:10:23] to drive because they live
[1:10:25] in areas. So it's a bit
[1:10:26] of a circular,
[1:10:27] circular issue there also. And
[1:10:29] again, this was kind
[1:10:30] of a key theme. Our
[1:10:32] transportation infrastructure
[1:10:33] needs to meet the needs
[1:10:35] of people with low income,
[1:10:36] seniors and people of color.
[1:10:37] But these communities also
[1:10:38] experience the highest
[1:10:39] financial burdens. So again,
[1:10:43] recognizing they're very,
[1:10:44] very concerned about equity
[1:10:46] considerations and the pursuit
[1:10:49] of new funding sources and how
[1:10:50] that will impact folks that are
[1:10:51] already feeling burdened.
[1:10:53] But if a new scenario,
[1:10:54] or excuse me, if a scenario
[1:10:55] with new revenues is pursued,
[1:10:56] really be clear
[1:10:58] about what benefits are going
[1:10:59] to be received from the
[1:11:01] for those community members
[1:11:02] from the additional cost. And
[1:11:04] again emphasizing the
[1:11:05] importance of equitable funding
[1:11:06] mechanisms. And as we heard
[1:11:08] that feedback,
[1:11:09] I think as we move forward with
[1:11:10] this discussion and as we spend
[1:11:11] more time with you talking
[1:11:13] about the financial strategy,
[1:11:15] which is the next presentation
[1:11:16] and a good chunk of November,
[1:11:18] we will definitely bring these
[1:11:19] sentiments and these comments
[1:11:21] back. And I'm going to turn it
[1:11:23] over to Craig
[1:11:24] for the scenario analysis.
[1:11:26] >> Yeah, and this will be
[1:11:27] pretty brief because we
[1:11:28] provided all the information
[1:11:29] in the packet, so. And we also
[1:11:31] shared a bunch of it
[1:11:33] with you last month as well.
[1:11:34] But just to kind
[1:11:36] of reiterate, as we've talked
[1:11:37] about all these four scenarios,
[1:11:39] we have definitely seen modest
[1:11:40] differences between the
[1:11:41] scenarios when we look at the
[1:11:42] model performance metrics. And
[1:11:43] just as a reminder, that's
[1:11:45] because our modeling can look
[1:11:46] at the regional capacity
[1:11:48] projects and it can look
[1:11:49] at transit.
[1:11:50] But programmatic investments,
[1:11:51] we don't have a list
[1:11:53] programmatic investment,
[1:11:55] so we can't model those. And
[1:11:56] the maintenance and
[1:11:57] preservation stuff is the same.
[1:11:58] And so that was really
[1:11:59] interesting as we were hearing
[1:12:00] feedback
[1:12:01] at the public meetings,
[1:12:02] we're hearing
[1:12:03] about the importance of
[1:12:04] maintenance and preservation as
[1:12:05] a policy.
[1:12:06] But also we heard information
[1:12:07] about kind of those local
[1:12:08] projects or the things that
[1:12:09] people interact
[1:12:10] with and they see
[1:12:11] in their communities. And so
[1:12:12] there was a lot of interest
[1:12:13] in that. And we definitely see
[1:12:15] greater distinctions between
[1:12:16] the scenarios when we look at
[1:12:18] the spatial qualitative
[1:12:20] measures and that one. And you
[1:12:22] can see on the next slide,
[1:12:23] we just decided
[1:12:25] to take one highlight
[1:12:26] from all the data we provide
[1:12:27] in packaging just to really
[1:12:29] reinforce that as we kind
[1:12:31] of look at this transit gaps as
[1:12:33] a reminder,
[1:12:34] this is places we looked at
[1:12:36] places that have a density that
[1:12:38] could support different levels
[1:12:39] of transit and whether or not
[1:12:42] they have that level
[1:12:43] of transit. So
[1:12:44] in this case it's the gap. So
[1:12:45] this is saying you have a
[1:12:47] density that could support that
[1:12:48] level of transit,
[1:12:49] but you don't have it available
[1:12:50] in those places. And so you can
[1:12:53] kind of see how that varies
[1:12:54] by today
[1:12:55] with our four transit types.
[1:12:56] Some
[1:12:57] of the biggest gaps being kind
[1:12:59] of in that really local or all
[1:13:00] day service and you can see how
[1:13:02] much different scenario 2b is.
[1:13:04] For instance,
[1:13:06] as we added those hours. So
[1:13:07] that that focus here
[1:13:09] to make sure you put the hours
[1:13:11] into transit has a big
[1:13:12] difference in terms of how much
[1:13:13] people would have access
[1:13:15] to those, those amenities,
[1:13:17] those facilities to be able
[1:13:19] to go about and travel. You can
[1:13:21] see as an example, the local
[1:13:22] transit gap is more than half
[1:13:23] of what it is today. And so
[1:13:26] that's a percentage wise and
[1:13:27] that's with a lot more people
[1:13:28] in places that have that level
[1:13:31] of transit as well. So it's a
[1:13:32] pretty significant reduction
[1:13:34] in those gaps.
[1:13:38] >> So that's just a quick high
[1:13:40] flyover, kind of a summary of
[1:13:42] the same information that was
[1:13:43] presented
[1:13:44] across the scenarios last month
[1:13:46] with a few additional metrics
[1:13:47] that were included
[1:13:48] in the packet. Again mostly
[1:13:50] focused on access to transit.
[1:13:51] You may remember that WSDOT had
[1:13:55] requested one correction at the
[1:13:57] last meeting and we just wanted
[1:13:58] to formalize that and put that
[1:14:00] in front of you. So the project
[1:14:01] is the i5 Thorn Lane to 38th
[1:14:03] Street Core HOV project. And
[1:14:05] the correction is that the
[1:14:07] start year
[1:14:08] of the project had been
[1:14:10] in error submitted for 2042.
[1:14:12] It is actually hoped to start
[1:14:13] in 2034. And so that would then
[1:14:16] bring that project over
[1:14:18] into scenario 2B. And this
[1:14:19] project of course is going to
[1:14:21] complete the HOV system missing
[1:14:22] link in Pierce county as well
[1:14:25] as I believe from King county
[1:14:27] three through to dupont. And
[1:14:29] the project does have current
[1:14:31] funds committed as well as
[1:14:32] future funding through Move
[1:14:33] Ahead Washington. And just full
[1:14:34] disclosure,
[1:14:35] by moving this project, by
[1:14:36] making this corrections and
[1:14:38] acknowledging that the project
[1:14:39] is anticipated to start
[1:14:40] before 2040, it does slightly
[1:14:41] increase the funding gap. The
[1:14:43] new revenues required
[1:14:45] for scenario to be instead of
[1:14:47] 48.9 billion, it would be 49.3
[1:14:49] billion. So we went
[1:14:53] through that pretty quickly.
[1:14:54] But there's been a lot
[1:14:55] of conversation
[1:14:56] over the last several months
[1:14:57] on these scenarios. And again
[1:14:58] last month we took a poll
[1:14:59] of you and the majority of you
[1:15:02] were leaning towards scenario
[1:15:03] 2B with a focus
[1:15:05] on maintenance and transit.
[1:15:06] Obviously there's a lot
[1:15:08] of conversations
[1:15:10] about that pursuit of new
[1:15:11] revenues will add some cost to
[1:15:12] households and we will again
[1:15:14] start queuing up that
[1:15:15] conversation
[1:15:16] on the financial strategy
[1:15:17] in a little bit.
[1:15:18] But we are asking
[1:15:19] for an action today to land on
[1:15:20] the one scenario that we will
[1:15:21] finalize the analysis for and
[1:15:25] have that be the draft plan
[1:15:26] that gets released
[1:15:27] for public comment. And
[1:15:29] before I ask for the action,
[1:15:30] just know that this is still an
[1:15:32] iteration. So we will release
[1:15:33] the draft plan
[1:15:35] for public comment hopefully
[1:15:36] in December through the end
[1:15:38] of January and we will come
[1:15:39] back. We will continue
[1:15:40] to have conversations with you
[1:15:41] about actions, policy
[1:15:43] statements, key messages
[1:15:44] for the draft plan and
[1:15:46] depending on what we hear and
[1:15:47] more thought, we can certainly
[1:15:49] modify as we move forward
[1:15:52] before we get
[1:15:53] to the final plan adoption in
[1:15:55] May. But this is just kind
[1:15:56] of an important moment in time
[1:15:57] for us. And so
[1:15:58] with that we took the liberty
[1:16:01] of assuming that it would be 2B.
[1:16:03] But if there is a difference,
[1:16:04] we can certainly modify that.
[1:16:06] We're just looking
[1:16:07] for an action today. Right.
[1:16:09] >> Thank you. Kelly and Craig.
[1:16:10] I know that we have put a lot
[1:16:12] of time and effort
[1:16:13] into this and many meetings.
[1:16:19] So hopefully we can move this
[1:16:20] the scenario forward and
[1:16:24] continue this body
[1:16:25] of work and move on
[1:16:27] to other things. So the
[1:16:29] questions for Kelly or Craig
[1:16:32] first and then
[1:16:35] after that we'll look
[1:16:36] for a motion.
[1:16:37] >> So Councilmember
[1:16:38] Schneider, thank you very much.
[1:16:39] I support to be what I would
[1:16:41] ask is when this is being put
[1:16:46] out there could there be some
[1:16:48] examples of what it does not
[1:16:49] fund and is that already
[1:16:51] in it? Because I think it's
[1:16:53] important
[1:16:54] to know what you're getting,
[1:16:56] but also what you're not
[1:16:58] getting. Absolutely. And so
[1:16:59] we've published that for each
[1:17:00] of the scenarios. So we'll
[1:17:01] definitely keep referencing
[1:17:03] that
[1:17:04] in the draft plan and we'll
[1:17:05] talk about how we got
[1:17:06] to scenario 2B and we'll talk
[1:17:08] about what's still not included
[1:17:10] and what's to come.
[1:17:11] Absolutely.
[1:17:13] >> Okay. Other comments or
[1:17:15] questions? Is there a motion?
[1:17:25] Don't all speak at once.
[1:17:27] >> So moved.
[1:17:29] >> Was that Dana?
[1:17:30] >> Yes.
[1:17:31] >> Okay. Okay. That was
[1:17:32] Council member Zarlingo with
[1:17:34] the second and the motion was
[1:17:37] by Jared Dana Ralph. Further
[1:17:41] discussion? We're
[1:17:44] with the moving forward
[1:17:45] with scenario 2B. Don't hear
[1:17:48] any. All in favor,
[1:17:49] please say aye.
[1:17:50] >> Aye.
[1:17:54] >> Is there anyone opposed?
[1:17:58] That passes unanimously. Thank
[1:17:59] you. All right. We are
[1:18:05] to item 10, the Regional
[1:18:07] Transportation plan financial
[1:18:08] strategy. Kelly, that's the
[1:18:10] next step.
[1:18:15] >> Well, this is great. We are
[1:18:16] having. We were a little
[1:18:17] worried that we wouldn't have
[1:18:18] terribly much time
[1:18:20] on this topic. And so we were
[1:18:21] really planning on queuing up
[1:18:22] this discussion today, but
[1:18:25] really coming and hitting you
[1:18:26] hard in November. But we've got
[1:18:27] a little bit more time,
[1:18:28] which is great. So you may
[1:18:32] remember we had numerous
[1:18:34] conversations
[1:18:35] on the RTP financial strategy
[1:18:37] in the fall of 2024. We
[1:18:39] identified some parameters,
[1:18:40] then we kind of put a pin
[1:18:42] in that and then started moving
[1:18:43] to what are all of the
[1:18:46] investments being proposed,
[1:18:47] what are our funding levels?
[1:18:49] And the work that we just did
[1:18:50] with you to identify the
[1:18:52] scenario had a lot
[1:18:53] of really great information.
[1:18:54] Now we have a level
[1:18:55] of new revenues that we need
[1:18:56] to go identify the details
[1:18:59] of what should that look like?
[1:19:01] And so that's what where we're
[1:19:02] going
[1:19:03] to start the conversation
[1:19:04] with you today and then
[1:19:05] continue into November. So
[1:19:07] we'll do a couple of reminders
[1:19:08] on the requirements.
[1:19:09] In the background,
[1:19:11] we'll remind you on the
[1:19:12] approach that you all landed
[1:19:13] on for pursuing new revenue
[1:19:15] sources. Craig had done some
[1:19:17] previous sensitivity analysis
[1:19:21] that we'll remind you of. We
[1:19:22] have a little bit of additional
[1:19:23] background and then really talk
[1:19:24] about. We've got some key
[1:19:26] discussion points and some
[1:19:27] decision points maybe that we
[1:19:29] want to work with you on as we
[1:19:30] build the financial strategy
[1:19:31] and include that
[1:19:33] in the draft plan. So you have
[1:19:38] seen this a couple of times.
[1:19:39] But just a quick reminder, as
[1:19:40] the, as the MPO
[1:19:42] under federal law, as the
[1:19:43] Regional Transportation
[1:19:44] Planning Organization
[1:19:45] under state law, we have
[1:19:46] certain requirements as it
[1:19:47] relates to this. So all
[1:19:48] of the levers and the,
[1:19:50] and the buckets of investment
[1:19:51] that we've talked about,
[1:19:52] we are required to have a
[1:19:53] regional transportation plan
[1:19:55] that identifies all
[1:19:57] of those investments on the
[1:19:59] transportation system as well
[1:20:00] as how we are going to pay
[1:20:02] for them, including
[1:20:04] maintenance,
[1:20:05] preservation and operations.
[1:20:06] So we have to have what we call
[1:20:08] a financially constrained plan.
[1:20:10] We've said this a few times and
[1:20:11] I think we're kind
[1:20:12] of past this point. But I'll
[1:20:13] just do a quick reminder. This
[1:20:14] is not an adopted budget. It is
[1:20:15] not saying that, you know,
[1:20:18] for programmatic investments,
[1:20:19] for example, we don't,
[1:20:20] we don't have a way of saying
[1:20:21] it's this investment first or
[1:20:23] this city has
[1:20:24] to do certain things. This is a
[1:20:26] long range vision of these are
[1:20:27] the investments that are needed
[1:20:30] and desired. This is how much
[1:20:31] it will cost
[1:20:32] to get there and how would we
[1:20:35] go about doing that. So when it
[1:20:37] comes to the new revenues which
[1:20:39] is going to be the focus
[1:20:40] of this conversation, we have
[1:20:41] to include some strategies and
[1:20:43] a little bit of detail. They
[1:20:44] have to be feasible and
[1:20:47] somewhat realistic
[1:20:49] to move forward. And you may
[1:20:51] remember we shared information
[1:20:52] on the history and the state
[1:20:54] and the region of pursuing new
[1:20:55] revenue sources. And I can't
[1:20:58] remember already. I think I'm
[1:21:00] still going before I pass it
[1:21:01] over to you. So this is a great
[1:21:03] follow up to the climate
[1:21:06] conversation that we just had.
[1:21:07] We spent a lot of time talking
[1:21:09] about our improved fleet fuel
[1:21:11] efficiency of the vehicles as
[1:21:16] well as the continued
[1:21:18] advancement in electric
[1:21:19] vehicles. I looked this
[1:21:21] morning, Craig, at our
[1:21:22] dashboard and I believe as of
[1:21:24] January the, the new sales of
[1:21:26] both zero emission vehicle
[1:21:28] electric vehicles and hybrids
[1:21:29] was about 43% of all sales
[1:21:31] in the region. So that just
[1:21:33] continues to grow. And that
[1:21:36] does obviously have an impact
[1:21:37] on the gas tax. The we've been
[1:21:38] saying that the gas tax is a
[1:21:40] declining revenue source for
[1:21:41] quite some time and it's just
[1:21:43] getting more so in addition
[1:21:45] to fuel efficiency,
[1:21:47] also just the impact
[1:21:49] of debt service requirements.
[1:21:50] And so this is just a reality
[1:21:52] that when we're planning on
[1:21:54] to 2050 that we have
[1:21:55] to acknowledge. And you may
[1:21:58] remember that for all of the
[1:22:00] investments that were
[1:22:01] identified and the gap to fully
[1:22:03] funding those investments,
[1:22:04] it is not the same
[1:22:07] across sponsor categories. And
[1:22:08] there's some pretty stark
[1:22:09] differences. And the bold
[1:22:10] highlights, really,
[1:22:12] the majority
[1:22:13] of the gap is falling
[1:22:14] on cities, followed
[1:22:15] by local transit. And that is
[1:22:16] also something that now is the
[1:22:18] time for us to really dig
[1:22:20] in and talk
[1:22:21] about not just filling the
[1:22:22] $49.3 billion gap,
[1:22:24] but filling it in a way that
[1:22:26] actually addresses the sponsor
[1:22:27] categories. I think this is
[1:22:31] where I'm passing it over
[1:22:32] to you.
[1:22:33] >> And so as we talked
[1:22:34] previously in kind
[1:22:36] of maybe a pivot
[1:22:37] from previous plans,
[1:22:38] as we definitely heard, an
[1:22:40] interest and being a bit more
[1:22:41] focused on our financial
[1:22:43] strategy and really focusing on
[1:22:44] those sources that one can do
[1:22:46] bigger things, the kind
[1:22:48] of bigger bang for your buck,
[1:22:50] but also ones that be
[1:22:51] implemented consistently
[1:22:52] across the region. Having said
[1:22:55] that, we are definitely
[1:22:57] in the financial strategy going
[1:22:58] to continue to have that kind
[1:22:59] of list of all the other
[1:23:01] strategies that locals can
[1:23:02] implement and do.
[1:23:03] But we really wanted to kind of
[1:23:05] hit and we had these five
[1:23:06] sources that were identified
[1:23:07] and some of it as we kind
[1:23:08] of get
[1:23:09] through this conversation,
[1:23:10] we want to see if this is still
[1:23:11] the same five that we want
[1:23:13] to continue to have. So we've
[1:23:15] heard definitely road usage,
[1:23:17] charge changes
[1:23:19] in vehicle fees. And so those
[1:23:20] can be weight fees,
[1:23:21] registration fees,
[1:23:22] motor vehicle excise tax, all
[1:23:24] those things that we're just
[1:23:25] kind of lumping together as
[1:23:27] vehicle fees. A look
[1:23:29] at increased sales tax rates
[1:23:30] for local transit,
[1:23:32] increased county road levy,
[1:23:34] which is currently capped at a
[1:23:35] 1% increased annual increase.
[1:23:37] And just so if folks remember
[1:23:38] this is actually
[1:23:39] in the legislature this year,
[1:23:41] they were looking
[1:23:42] at possibly lifting that to I
[1:23:44] believe they looked I think
[1:23:46] The House looked at 3%, the
[1:23:47] Senate looked at 6%. Neither
[1:23:50] passed at this point, but it's
[1:23:51] definitely been something the
[1:23:52] legislature is actively looking
[1:23:53] at right now. And then Deputy
[1:23:55] Mayor Arnold appointed us to
[1:23:56] some work that their joint
[1:23:57] transportation committee had
[1:23:58] done
[1:23:59] on a retail delivery fee. And
[1:24:01] so that was also something that
[1:24:02] we heard were five sources
[1:24:03] to kind of consider. So we had
[1:24:07] gone ahead and done some
[1:24:09] sensitivity tests. This was
[1:24:10] before we knew what the need
[1:24:12] was going to be
[1:24:13] for the revenue. And so this is
[1:24:14] just a reminder as we kind
[1:24:15] of looked at different,
[1:24:17] different levels of things,
[1:24:18] we now know the gap based
[1:24:20] on what you just selected
[1:24:22] with scenario 2B is about $49
[1:24:23] billion. So as we kind of look
[1:24:25] at those, good news,
[1:24:27] we don't have to go
[1:24:28] with the high versions
[1:24:29] of these to generate that
[1:24:30] somewhere combination
[1:24:32] of the low and medium. We could
[1:24:33] actually fill the gap. We can,
[1:24:35] we can find a gap, find a way
[1:24:36] to fill the gap based
[1:24:38] on these,
[1:24:39] these sources that we have.
[1:24:41] This is just kind
[1:24:42] of a reminder of when we kind
[1:24:44] of looked at those,
[1:24:45] roughly what you could generate
[1:24:46] by those. And you can see road
[1:24:47] usage charges definitely have a
[1:24:49] big bang for their buck. But
[1:24:52] you can generate a lot as well
[1:24:53] with, say, sales tax. That's
[1:24:56] why sales tax is pretty easy
[1:24:57] to implement,
[1:24:58] but it gives you that kind
[1:24:59] of rough order of magnitude
[1:25:00] in terms of what the big kind
[1:25:02] of bang for your buck is
[1:25:03] by these different sources.
[1:25:05] Next one. So, kind
[1:25:07] of as we continue to move the
[1:25:08] conversation forward,
[1:25:10] we thought we'd start
[1:25:11] to share too. As we look
[1:25:12] at these five sources,
[1:25:14] some are constrained in
[1:25:15] different ways that you can
[1:25:16] spend them. And I think this
[1:25:17] goes back
[1:25:18] to when we saw that gap that
[1:25:19] Kelly was showing and we talked
[1:25:21] about the percentage. 85%
[1:25:22] of the gap is for counties,
[1:25:24] cities and local transit. 15%
[1:25:27] is for the state. So when we
[1:25:29] look at a road usage charge as
[1:25:31] an example,
[1:25:32] that can be implemented
[1:25:33] for the state, if it was
[1:25:34] implemented same way gas tax
[1:25:36] is, that can go to the state,
[1:25:37] that can go to counties,
[1:25:38] that can go to cities,
[1:25:40] can't go to transit. As an
[1:25:41] example, right now,
[1:25:43] the current gas tax
[1:25:44] distribution, last year, 80%
[1:25:46] of the gas tax went
[1:25:47] to the state and 20% went
[1:25:51] to cities and counties.
[1:25:52] So as you start to think
[1:25:53] about what that gap is
[1:25:54] for moving forward,
[1:25:56] when the gap is 85%. So it's
[1:25:57] almost the exact reverse
[1:25:59] of this. As we think
[1:26:00] about that road usage charge,
[1:26:02] there's nothing that says it
[1:26:03] has to be distributed 20 this
[1:26:05] way. That's one of the things
[1:26:07] to think about. But definitely
[1:26:08] it can help fill those holes.
[1:26:10] But current distributions would
[1:26:12] make it really, really tough to
[1:26:13] use that source and that
[1:26:14] current distribution that same
[1:26:17] way. We look at vehicle fees,
[1:26:18] vehicle fees actually currently
[1:26:19] can be used by the state,
[1:26:21] by counties, by cities,
[1:26:22] and also by transit, both local
[1:26:24] transit and regional transit.
[1:26:25] Sound Transit has a motor
[1:26:27] vehicle excise tax, but also
[1:26:28] local transit gets a small
[1:26:30] share of Vehicle fees as well.
[1:26:32] And you can kind
[1:26:34] of see that distribution. When
[1:26:35] we look at existing vehicle fee
[1:26:36] distributions
[1:26:37] in the last couple of years,
[1:26:38] that one's close to about 70%
[1:26:40] to the state,
[1:26:42] little more than 28%
[1:26:44] to counties and cities,
[1:26:46] and roughly about 4%
[1:26:48] to local transit. So definitely
[1:26:49] a little bit bigger share.
[1:26:51] But just as that reminder,
[1:26:52] again, as we look
[1:26:53] at those ones, as we think
[1:26:54] of newer fees,
[1:26:56] this distribution would. And
[1:26:57] you can kind of see that the
[1:26:59] top line up there. We were
[1:27:01] saying if we look at those
[1:27:02] current distribution methods,
[1:27:04] it would be tough to. For us
[1:27:06] to meet the needs, the gaps for
[1:27:07] the cities and the counties,
[1:27:09] especially if those same
[1:27:10] distributions are the same.
[1:27:13] When you look
[1:27:14] at the transit sales tax,
[1:27:15] this is one of the ones.
[1:27:16] On that previous slide,
[1:27:17] when we talked about levers, we
[1:27:19] just did what if everybody was
[1:27:20] at a certain level? So we did a
[1:27:21] scenario, the middle one,
[1:27:23] where what if everyone was
[1:27:25] at 1.4% for local sales tax?
[1:27:27] We picked 1.4 because that's
[1:27:31] what sound trans is. Sales tax
[1:27:32] rate is. So what if all local
[1:27:33] transit was at that kind
[1:27:34] of regional level?
[1:27:35] But having said that,
[1:27:37] that's a bigger lift for some
[1:27:38] of our transit partners than it
[1:27:39] would be for others. When you
[1:27:41] look at Pierce and Everett, as
[1:27:42] an example, are currently
[1:27:45] at 0.6%,
[1:27:46] that would be more than
[1:27:47] doubling to go to 1.4%.
[1:27:48] Whereas you can see for
[1:27:50] community transit as an
[1:27:51] example,
[1:27:52] it's a little smaller lift.
[1:27:54] But one of the things we know
[1:27:55] that's important for us
[1:27:56] to highlight is some
[1:27:58] of these things take action at
[1:27:59] the local level and some take
[1:28:00] action
[1:28:01] at the legislative level. This
[1:28:04] would require action at both.
[1:28:06] If it goes over 1.2%,
[1:28:08] you'd have to have the
[1:28:09] legislature authorize it. And
[1:28:11] then you'd also have
[1:28:12] to have your locals voted
[1:28:14] in as you think about that. So
[1:28:15] as we think about how we want
[1:28:17] to package these things and
[1:28:18] think about what those levels
[1:28:19] of them are, kind
[1:28:21] of give the framework for.
[1:28:23] For kind of that idea. We
[1:28:25] already mentioned the county
[1:28:26] road levy. It's currently
[1:28:27] capped at 1% annual growth.
[1:28:29] There's lots of different ways
[1:28:31] to do that. We've kind
[1:28:32] of showed different levels.
[1:28:34] And I had mentioned the state
[1:28:35] legislature has already started
[1:28:36] looking at other levels,
[1:28:37] whether it's somewhere
[1:28:38] between 3 and 6% as we go
[1:28:39] there. And that's definitely
[1:28:40] specific
[1:28:42] for those county needs. The
[1:28:43] retail delivery fees,
[1:28:44] you'll see that not applicable.
[1:28:46] And to be determined,
[1:28:47] because that doesn't exist yet.
[1:28:49] And so sort of to be determined
[1:28:51] how that could. Could be used
[1:28:52] or generated.
[1:28:57] >> And I think this is back
[1:28:58] to me. So we would love
[1:28:59] to especially since we have
[1:29:00] some time this morning,
[1:29:02] we would love to hear from you
[1:29:03] but I'll just go
[1:29:04] through a couple of slides
[1:29:05] about some of the topics that
[1:29:06] we think are going
[1:29:07] to be most relevant. One is
[1:29:10] while we had a fair amount
[1:29:12] of discussion in late 2024, are
[1:29:13] these the five sources that
[1:29:15] should still be included
[1:29:16] in our financial strategy? And
[1:29:18] as Craig mentioned, we will
[1:29:20] still have a plan document that
[1:29:21] lists all
[1:29:23] of the different types of
[1:29:24] sources that could be pursued.
[1:29:25] But in terms of our financial
[1:29:27] figures and our focus, are
[1:29:28] those five still the right
[1:29:31] ones? What levels or rates
[1:29:33] should we kind of assume And I
[1:29:35] do want to I will tease up the
[1:29:37] next slide. We do have one
[1:29:38] decision point that we need
[1:29:39] to get your feedback on
[1:29:41] to today. But our and Ben maybe
[1:29:42] help me out on this. Our
[1:29:44] financial strategy. We want
[1:29:47] to build something that is kind
[1:29:48] of builds the box so
[1:29:51] to speak. We need to identify
[1:29:53] the feasible sources. We need
[1:29:55] to identify how they would be
[1:29:56] pursued. But we don't need to
[1:29:57] say we think it should be
[1:29:58] exactly this and this is what
[1:30:00] we want to go advocate for.
[1:30:01] We've talked about a future
[1:30:03] work program action item and
[1:30:04] maybe we could take more time
[1:30:06] to dig in. So it's, it's our
[1:30:07] financial strategy is a little
[1:30:09] bit of a balance
[1:30:10] between identifying kind
[1:30:13] of the strong parameters
[1:30:14] of this is what it's going
[1:30:15] to take to fund this plan. How
[1:30:17] do we go about it but
[1:30:18] without landing on something
[1:30:20] that you would go take and
[1:30:21] implement tomorrow. We also
[1:30:24] know and as we heard
[1:30:25] from the EAC members in
[1:30:27] particular and some
[1:30:28] conversation at this table,
[1:30:29] equity and fairness
[1:30:30] consideration is certainly
[1:30:32] at top of mind. So folks are
[1:30:34] already excited experiencing
[1:30:36] impacts in the world today
[1:30:37] with their with financial
[1:30:39] considerations not necessarily
[1:30:40] a currently fair system when it
[1:30:44] comes
[1:30:45] to transportation finance. And
[1:30:46] so we definitely need
[1:30:48] to have that conversation.
[1:30:49] While PSRC and some of you
[1:30:51] maybe don't have the
[1:30:53] implementation authority we do
[1:30:54] we can provide information on
[1:30:55] things that should be
[1:30:57] considered and called out when
[1:30:59] implementation does occur.
[1:31:00] We've talked a fair bit
[1:31:02] about meeting the gaps
[1:31:03] by sponsor category. We don't
[1:31:04] want to just say the sum
[1:31:06] of all of these can fund
[1:31:07] everything when we know that
[1:31:09] there's still a large city gap
[1:31:11] we want
[1:31:12] to address that head on. We've
[1:31:13] talked about the changes to the
[1:31:14] current distribution methods
[1:31:15] and then on that future action
[1:31:17] we've talked
[1:31:18] about this a couple of times
[1:31:19] and I think we're still we'll
[1:31:21] be curious
[1:31:23] to see where you all are
[1:31:24] on that. But it does Seem time,
[1:31:25] given all of the uncertainty
[1:31:26] that's happening, Robin's
[1:31:28] information on,
[1:31:29] on the state budget,
[1:31:31] what's happening
[1:31:32] at the federal level and all of
[1:31:33] these issues maybe actually
[1:31:34] taking some time once the plan
[1:31:36] is adopted to we,
[1:31:37] we are the long game. We are,
[1:31:39] we are looking at 2050. We are
[1:31:40] not looking out
[1:31:41] at something that's
[1:31:43] to be immediately implemented
[1:31:44] in the next, you know, two
[1:31:46] to five years. So maybe it is
[1:31:48] time to build the box with this
[1:31:49] financial strategy and set up a
[1:31:51] work program where we reconvene
[1:31:52] and we really talk
[1:31:53] through some of all of these,
[1:31:54] these details. And
[1:31:56] before I turn it over to you,
[1:31:58] if I may, there is one kind
[1:31:59] of nuance that we do need from
[1:32:01] you is we will definitely
[1:32:03] continue this conversation in
[1:32:05] November and December if
[1:32:06] necessary. But in order for
[1:32:08] Craig to finalize the modeling
[1:32:09] and move that forward
[1:32:11] into the draft plan,
[1:32:13] we do need some guidance on the
[1:32:15] road usage chart so that we can
[1:32:17] finalize that. And our kind of
[1:32:19] baseline assumption is if
[1:32:20] should we assume the state rate
[1:32:22] that has been looked
[1:32:24] at right now. And we also have
[1:32:25] assumed maybe that begins in
[1:32:27] 2035, which is our interim
[1:32:30] year. So that's one thing. So
[1:32:32] we definitely want to kind
[1:32:34] of get some head nods from you
[1:32:35] on that so that we can move
[1:32:36] forward for that assumption
[1:32:37] in the,
[1:32:38] in the plan that goes out.
[1:32:39] But then also talking
[1:32:40] to you about, we think in
[1:32:41] November we'll try to bring
[1:32:42] back as much information as
[1:32:43] possible. Maybe we come back
[1:32:46] on a couple of different
[1:32:47] updated revenue scenarios
[1:32:49] to meet the $49 billion gap,
[1:32:50] referencing some of the sponsor
[1:32:54] category and really talk
[1:32:55] through the policy issues,
[1:32:56] what direction you want
[1:32:58] to include, what policy
[1:32:59] statements or actions you want
[1:33:00] to include in the,
[1:33:01] in the plan. Anything that I
[1:33:04] missed?
[1:33:07] >> Not that you missed,
[1:33:08] but just
[1:33:09] to add the reason we're asking
[1:33:10] about the road usage charges
[1:33:11] of all these ones,
[1:33:12] that's the one that has impacts
[1:33:14] on the performance and the
[1:33:16] modeling. We'll see changes
[1:33:17] in VMT, which will then change
[1:33:19] other performance metrics. So
[1:33:20] that's really where we're
[1:33:21] trying to kind
[1:33:22] of get your feel for that now
[1:33:24] so that we could move forward
[1:33:25] with the now that we know what
[1:33:26] scenario it is,
[1:33:28] if we know what level that is,
[1:33:29] it allows us to move forward
[1:33:30] with the modeling stuff now as
[1:33:32] well, while we continue
[1:33:33] to work
[1:33:34] on what all the other kind of
[1:33:36] financial inputs would be.
[1:33:38] >> Not trying
[1:33:39] to steer this too much, but
[1:33:40] acknowledging that the biggest
[1:33:42] need is in
[1:33:44] for local government. Is it
[1:33:46] realistic that we're going on
[1:33:47] the gas tax or road usage
[1:33:52] charge is to change the
[1:33:56] distribution methodology Is
[1:33:58] that realistic and where the
[1:34:02] retail delivery fee really does
[1:34:03] probably more impact our local
[1:34:07] community roads more than the,
[1:34:11] the regional system. So just my
[1:34:13] thoughts there,
[1:34:15] and I see some hands raised.
[1:34:16] Council Member Kettle, go
[1:34:18] ahead.
[1:34:20] >> Yes, thank you. I just
[1:34:21] wanted to thank you
[1:34:24] for the briefing. And I just
[1:34:26] wanted to make one note that,
[1:34:27] you know, when we're talking
[1:34:29] about the sales tax,
[1:34:30] it was said kind of casually,
[1:34:31] but I'm here to tell you that
[1:34:33] we're pretty much maxed out.
[1:34:34] And, you know, we just had the,
[1:34:37] you know, the state approved
[1:34:39] the public safety sales tax
[1:34:40] increase, which here in King
[1:34:41] county, both the city, Seattle
[1:34:43] and the county have pushed
[1:34:44] forward on, but we're pretty
[1:34:46] much capped out. So this idea
[1:34:48] that we can use continually
[1:34:49] increase the sales tax
[1:34:50] percentage, I think is, is
[1:34:52] something that shouldn't be
[1:34:55] assumed because the, I think at
[1:34:57] this point we're the point
[1:34:59] where we're going to have to
[1:35:00] start pushing back and not
[1:35:02] supporting these kinds of
[1:35:04] things because the cumulative
[1:35:06] effect over the years
[1:35:07] of keep adding and adding,
[1:35:09] we're pretty much at a point
[1:35:10] now where we can't keep doing
[1:35:11] so and we can't just say, okay,
[1:35:13] this is what we're going
[1:35:14] to do. And this applies
[1:35:16] to us, too. We had a vote
[1:35:17] against it yesterday or two
[1:35:19] days ago, and
[1:35:20] for good reason,
[1:35:22] and overall it did pass.
[1:35:25] But again, I think we're pretty
[1:35:27] much maxed out. So I put a big
[1:35:29] caveat
[1:35:30] on the retail sales tax piece.
[1:35:32] Thank you.
[1:35:34] >> Thank you. Council Member
[1:35:36] Daugherty.
[1:35:38] >> I just need some
[1:35:39] clarification
[1:35:40] on the road use discharge. Is
[1:35:41] the road uses charge. If we're
[1:35:43] talking about is it going
[1:35:44] to take the place of, or is it
[1:35:46] in addition
[1:35:47] to the current gas tax?
[1:35:50] >> It would be replacement
[1:35:51] because the gas tax will
[1:35:52] eventually decline
[1:35:54] to the point of no return. So
[1:35:55] this would not be additive. It
[1:35:56] would be a replacement.
[1:35:58] >> And we're not really looking
[1:35:59] for this to happen until
[1:36:00] 2035.
[1:36:02] >> Correct. Our current plan
[1:36:03] assumed maybe starting in
[1:36:04] 2030, but given that 2030 is
[1:36:06] going to be four years away
[1:36:07] here pretty soon, and 2035 is
[1:36:09] our interim year, we thought
[1:36:11] that that was a bit more
[1:36:12] realistic,
[1:36:13] give us a little bit more time,
[1:36:14] 10 years or so before maybe
[1:36:15] implementing that.
[1:36:17] >> And I understand this would
[1:36:18] be up to the legislature,
[1:36:19] but does that take
[1:36:20] into consideration the bonding
[1:36:21] of the gas tax?
[1:36:25] >> Yes, it does. Yes. Thank
[1:36:27] you.
[1:36:30] >> Thank you, Chair Ralph.
[1:36:32] >> Thank you. I know that the
[1:36:34] retail delivery fee is
[1:36:35] down there
[1:36:37] with a TBD and an na,
[1:36:39] but I would be, I would be not
[1:36:43] doing my job if I didn't
[1:36:44] highlight it at Every
[1:36:46] opportunity that I can. One
[1:36:47] of the concerns I have with the
[1:36:49] retail delivery fee is because
[1:36:51] of streamlined sales tax. The
[1:36:53] change the state made back in
[1:36:54] 2008, taking all
[1:36:56] of the sales tax away
[1:36:57] from cities like Kent that have
[1:37:00] the distribution hubs costing
[1:37:02] us money, we're still Kent is
[1:37:04] $20 million
[1:37:06] in the hole because
[1:37:07] of that change. My concern
[1:37:09] with retail delivery fees,
[1:37:10] unless they are somehow divided
[1:37:13] among cities that are providing
[1:37:15] the infrastructure for those
[1:37:17] retail deliveries and the city
[1:37:19] that they are going to,
[1:37:21] it just is a piling on
[1:37:23] of those that are receiving all
[1:37:25] of the revenue are going
[1:37:27] to be receiving more. And those
[1:37:29] of us that are providing the
[1:37:30] infrastructure so that everyone
[1:37:31] can receive that revenue are
[1:37:33] going to get further behind.
[1:37:34] So I just want to highlight
[1:37:36] that and it will not be the
[1:37:38] last time that you hear me
[1:37:40] raise that concern
[1:37:41] about the retail delivery fee.
[1:37:42] Thank you.
[1:37:46] >> Excuse me, Mr. Chair, can I
[1:37:47] offer up a little bit
[1:37:48] of information? We'll be
[1:37:49] sending out to the board the
[1:37:53] paper that the study that the
[1:37:54] Joint Transportation Committee
[1:37:56] commissioned a couple
[1:37:58] of years ago. But one thing
[1:37:59] in response, Chair Ralph, is
[1:38:02] they looked in particular
[1:38:04] at the two places
[1:38:05] in the country, Colorado and
[1:38:07] Minnesota, where a retail
[1:38:08] delivery fee is in effect. And
[1:38:10] just as an example,
[1:38:12] they use factors
[1:38:13] like population, roadway miles,
[1:38:15] vehicle miles traveled,
[1:38:16] equal share distribution.
[1:38:19] There are a lot
[1:38:20] of different ways
[1:38:21] to address some
[1:38:22] of the inequities in
[1:38:23] application that you're
[1:38:24] pointing out in terms
[1:38:25] of understanding how to make
[1:38:29] sure that all jurisdictions
[1:38:31] actually benefit
[1:38:32] from these types of fees. And
[1:38:34] also there are some limitations
[1:38:36] in terms of the
[1:38:37] like they're only,
[1:38:39] I believe it's in Minnesota
[1:38:41] only on purchases that are
[1:38:45] $100 and above and it's a 50
[1:38:47] cent fee. So thanks anyhow.
[1:38:49] There's a lot more information
[1:38:50] about this,
[1:38:51] but we've been thinking about
[1:38:52] the comments that you've been
[1:38:54] making.
[1:38:55] >> I appreciate that. Thank
[1:38:56] you.
[1:38:57] >> This might be a good time
[1:38:58] since we're
[1:38:59] on retail delivery fee.
[1:39:00] Council member Hamilton from
[1:39:01] Bellevue could not attend, but
[1:39:02] he also submitted some comments
[1:39:03] specific
[1:39:04] to the retail delivery fee.
[1:39:05] And I won't read everything,
[1:39:07] but it's really pointing
[1:39:08] out that the needs, especially
[1:39:10] since we talked
[1:39:11] about the needs
[1:39:12] for cities and local transit,
[1:39:13] that new or replacement revenue
[1:39:14] sources should be equitable,
[1:39:16] less regressive, support
[1:39:17] economic development and
[1:39:19] minimize impacts
[1:39:20] to small businesses. And
[1:39:21] because of that, he, he did not
[1:39:23] endorse the retail delivery
[1:39:25] fee. He thinks that that retail
[1:39:27] delivery, he does not meet
[1:39:29] those specific criteria.
[1:39:31] But again in November. So I
[1:39:33] wanted to make sure I got that
[1:39:34] on the record. And in November
[1:39:35] we will provide as much more
[1:39:36] information
[1:39:37] to help the conversation
[1:39:38] on each one of these funding
[1:39:40] sources so we can have a
[1:39:42] broader conversation. Thank
[1:39:43] you.
[1:39:44] >> Thank you for that input.
[1:39:46] Council member Walker, go
[1:39:47] ahead.
[1:39:49] >> Thank you. Really
[1:39:51] appreciating this conversation.
[1:39:52] And I think everyone's
[1:39:54] comments so far have
[1:39:55] highlighted how different
[1:39:56] jurisdictions utilize different
[1:39:57] tools.
[1:39:59] But I just wanted to make
[1:40:01] sure.
[1:40:02] Council member Kettle.
[1:40:03] I don't disagree with you
[1:40:04] on the sales tax piece, but
[1:40:05] in Pierce county we have not
[1:40:08] taken advantage of our entire
[1:40:11] transit sales tax authority and
[1:40:13] so we are eager to do that. So
[1:40:15] just making sure that as we
[1:40:18] look at these, we do recognize
[1:40:19] how different each jurisdiction
[1:40:20] is. You know, for that one,
[1:40:22] for example. Maybe Seattle
[1:40:24] wouldn't take advantage,
[1:40:25] but we would be able to. And
[1:40:26] wondering as we model that how
[1:40:32] do we take those sorts
[1:40:33] of things into account, sort
[1:40:34] of the other factors,
[1:40:35] because it's a great point. We
[1:40:37] have the arts and culture sales
[1:40:39] tax, we have the community
[1:40:40] safety,
[1:40:43] law enforcement sales. You
[1:40:44] know, all these pieces are
[1:40:45] adding up and it does make a
[1:40:46] huge difference. We can't keep
[1:40:48] passing sales tax over and
[1:40:49] over and over again. So how do
[1:40:51] we model that
[1:40:52] from the staff perspective?
[1:40:55] >> That is a great question.
[1:40:56] And I'm looking
[1:40:57] to my phone-a-friends next
[1:40:58] to me, I think so. I don't know
[1:41:00] that we would model that,
[1:41:01] but we can come back. And one
[1:41:02] of the options that Craig
[1:41:03] talked about is we don't need
[1:41:05] to apply, particularly
[1:41:06] for transit sales tax. We don't
[1:41:07] need to apply. Apply the same
[1:41:08] assumption for each transit
[1:41:10] agency. I think we have a
[1:41:12] massive spreadsheet with
[1:41:13] revenue information and I
[1:41:15] believe we have it broken down
[1:41:17] by agency. So one of the
[1:41:19] conversations that the board
[1:41:20] could have is assuming
[1:41:22] different increases per agency
[1:41:25] if that was the route that
[1:41:27] would want to go. We could
[1:41:29] also, again,
[1:41:30] since we are talking about a
[1:41:31] little bit higher level
[1:41:33] approach of we're trying to
[1:41:34] identify these are the needs.
[1:41:36] Kind of
[1:41:37] like the conversation we had
[1:41:38] on the climate plan. These are
[1:41:39] the needs. What is it going
[1:41:40] to take to get there? So we
[1:41:42] could also craft something
[1:41:44] about, you know,
[1:41:45] a more average increase in
[1:41:46] transit sales tax would be
[1:41:47] necessary to achieve that 2%
[1:41:51] local transit growth that is
[1:41:52] now embedded in transit
[1:41:54] to be that we say we want. And
[1:41:56] the details could be worked
[1:41:57] out maybe more in this future
[1:41:58] action item or we could have
[1:41:59] more qualitative information
[1:42:01] talking about some
[1:42:02] of those challenges. I will go
[1:42:04] out on a limb and ask my
[1:42:05] colleagues, could we come back
[1:42:07] with more information
[1:42:08] to council member Kettle's
[1:42:09] concern? More information
[1:42:10] on sales tax
[1:42:11] in general and how an increase
[1:42:12] to the transit sales Tax would
[1:42:13] impact that.
[1:42:15] >> I was going to say the same
[1:42:16] thing, Kelly. My mind was going
[1:42:17] there too as I were, you know,
[1:42:18] here I was fixated
[1:42:20] on the transit sales tax piece.
[1:42:21] But and it makes a lot of sense
[1:42:24] is that we should actually show
[1:42:25] what once it gets added
[1:42:26] with everything else,
[1:42:28] if you end up
[1:42:29] with a 15% sales tax,
[1:42:31] it's getting really hard.
[1:42:33] Right. And so, and we see those
[1:42:35] differences where some places
[1:42:36] it's already 10.5% once you add
[1:42:38] in everybody. So I think that
[1:42:40] would be really helpful and we
[1:42:41] could definitely do that.
[1:42:43] We'll have to find a good way
[1:42:44] to do it because I know it.
[1:42:46] It varies a lot places
[1:42:48] but we can find a way to try
[1:42:49] to highlight that
[1:42:50] at a higher level.
[1:42:51] >> So we understand it maybe
[1:42:52] based on some of the
[1:42:53] conversations we're hearing
[1:42:55] here, it maybe rising raising
[1:42:57] the folks that aren't
[1:42:59] to the level that others are,
[1:43:00] you know, to,
[1:43:02] to an even playing field. So
[1:43:04] there's invest similar
[1:43:06] investments
[1:43:07] in all communities.
[1:43:09] >> Brady delang, go ahead.
[1:43:17] >> Oh, sorry about that. My
[1:43:18] camera is not working. Okay,
[1:43:19] well thank you, Mr. Chair. So I
[1:43:21] just wanted to quickly share
[1:43:23] some information
[1:43:24] with this group as it relates
[1:43:25] to the retail delivery fee.
[1:43:27] During my time at AWC,
[1:43:28] we worked with the JTC
[1:43:31] to spearhead this concept
[1:43:33] around the retail delivery fee
[1:43:35] specifically
[1:43:36] with the intention
[1:43:38] of having a distribution
[1:43:40] between cities and counties.
[1:43:41] And one thing I would just
[1:43:42] share with staff
[1:43:44] at PRC is that we also. PSRC,
[1:43:46] excuse me, my dyslexia. We
[1:43:49] asked the GTC to come up
[1:43:52] with a mechanism, a tool
[1:43:54] to help kind of demonstrate
[1:43:59] different distribution levels
[1:44:00] among cities and counties, but
[1:44:01] with the intent of a direct
[1:44:03] distribution specifically
[1:44:04] to local governments,
[1:44:06] regardless of location,
[1:44:07] regardless of direct impact.
[1:44:09] So part of that is intended
[1:44:11] to really kind
[1:44:13] of offset some the, of the
[1:44:14] potential impacts. I think
[1:44:15] there's a lot of flexibility
[1:44:18] in how you might change some of
[1:44:20] that distribution and how you
[1:44:21] might kind
[1:44:23] of adjust specifically
[1:44:24] for infrastructure impacts or,
[1:44:26] you know, kind of other
[1:44:27] elements. I think that some
[1:44:29] of the staff that still is
[1:44:30] at AWC might be talking
[1:44:32] about this. So I would
[1:44:33] encourage you to work
[1:44:34] with them and to chat
[1:44:35] with them about some of the
[1:44:37] different opportunities that
[1:44:38] create could be on the table
[1:44:41] in the future related
[1:44:42] to how this,
[1:44:43] this tool might work. The other
[1:44:45] thing I'll just quickly note
[1:44:46] too is that the different,
[1:44:47] the distinctions between
[1:44:48] Colorado and Minnesota
[1:44:50] in particular, Minnesota's fee
[1:44:52] really was directed
[1:44:56] specifically
[1:44:57] at local governments, but
[1:44:58] with a lot of caveats. So they
[1:44:59] wound up generating far less
[1:45:01] revenue than Colorado's.
[1:45:03] Conversely, Colorado went back
[1:45:05] to a year or two later
[1:45:06] to adjust some
[1:45:07] of the impacts. So equally,
[1:45:09] we took that into account and
[1:45:10] with the mechanism,
[1:45:12] the tool that we created
[1:45:13] in conjunction with JTC,
[1:45:14] you can adjust for some
[1:45:15] of these,
[1:45:16] like clear distinctions
[1:45:17] on impacts to businesses,
[1:45:19] impacts to infrastructure,
[1:45:20] and kind of the categorical or
[1:45:23] sequential elements that folks
[1:45:27] might want to try to address as
[1:45:28] you're creating policy
[1:45:30] to implement,
[1:45:31] implement something
[1:45:33] like this. So I would be happy
[1:45:34] to chat
[1:45:35] with folks a little bit more
[1:45:36] about the work that we did or
[1:45:37] put you in contact with the
[1:45:38] folks. I think they're kind
[1:45:39] of carrying on this torch,
[1:45:40] if you're so interested.
[1:45:41] But I just wanted
[1:45:42] to share a little background
[1:45:43] since I was
[1:45:45] on this call and frankly, kind
[1:45:47] of created the mess, so
[1:45:48] to speak.
[1:45:51] >> Thank you, Brandy. We will
[1:45:52] definitely reach out. Thanks
[1:45:53] for that.
[1:45:54] >> And Council Member Jacob
[1:45:56] Walker.
[1:45:57] >> Thank you. Had we got any
[1:45:59] indication last year or is
[1:46:01] there any idea going
[1:46:03] into the next session about how
[1:46:05] that gas tax distribution may
[1:46:07] change or may not change at all
[1:46:09] if the ROC charge is adopted?
[1:46:15] >> That is a great question.
[1:46:16] I'm looking to bend to see if
[1:46:18] you have more details. I know
[1:46:19] that when we incorporated
[1:46:20] assumptions
[1:46:22] about a road usage charge
[1:46:23] in our core current plan, we
[1:46:24] very much were assuming and
[1:46:26] basically stating that the
[1:46:27] distribution needed
[1:46:29] to be broadened to be able
[1:46:31] to fund multimodal investments,
[1:46:32] but. Ben, do you have a better
[1:46:34] answer to that?
[1:46:35] >> I don't recall exactly. I
[1:46:37] don't remember there being a
[1:46:39] lot of discussion
[1:46:40] on any changes
[1:46:41] of the formula distribution of
[1:46:43] the existing gas tax. I mean,
[1:46:45] of THE RUC. It would replicate
[1:46:48] the same distribution
[1:46:50] percentages as the current gas
[1:46:52] tax. That's my recollection.
[1:46:54] >> Thank you.
[1:46:57] I just want to,
[1:46:59] I know we just voted on, on
[1:47:00] to be, but just going
[1:47:03] through this presentation,
[1:47:04] again, being newer
[1:47:06] to the board,
[1:47:08] but having always dealt with it
[1:47:09] as a taxpayer. I'm starting
[1:47:13] to have a curiosity if, if the
[1:47:16] revenue gap that we're trying
[1:47:18] to address is more
[1:47:20] of a reminder of our need
[1:47:23] to kind of reconsider our
[1:47:26] spending expectations or
[1:47:27] resource expectations. I think
[1:47:34] that obviously we all want to
[1:47:36] make sure that we're ensuring
[1:47:37] safety and keeping our
[1:47:39] commitments realistic.
[1:47:42] But I'm just starting to wonder
[1:47:44] if the shortfall is not a
[1:47:45] revenue problem but more of a
[1:47:47] spending expectation problem.
[1:47:48] So I just wanted to throw that
[1:47:51] out there. Thank you guys.
[1:47:56] >> Appreciate that input.
[1:47:57] >> Councilman Schneider.
[1:48:01] >> Thank you. I appreciate it.
[1:48:03] So I in general am, you know,
[1:48:07] very interested in the Ruchy
[1:48:09] and remembering back
[1:48:12] to that being one
[1:48:13] of the major levers that we
[1:48:16] have for reducing Miles
[1:48:17] traveled and you know,
[1:48:18] our getting
[1:48:19] to our climate action goals,
[1:48:20] I'm wondering if it is
[1:48:21] considered, is it regressive?
[1:48:26] In other words, based on,
[1:48:28] based on the comment that we
[1:48:30] heard earlier today
[1:48:32] about displaced workers, you
[1:48:33] know,
[1:48:34] leaving the cities and having
[1:48:35] to travel further to get
[1:48:36] to jobs, is it sort of,
[1:48:42] is it going to be sort
[1:48:44] of more punitive
[1:48:45] for folks who, you know,
[1:48:49] are traveling for work in that
[1:48:51] way that are lower income?
[1:48:53] It's a great question and
[1:48:54] again, I'll ask Ben to help me
[1:48:55] out here. I think that the
[1:48:57] commission has done some really
[1:48:58] great work showing that the gas
[1:49:00] tax is actually more regressive
[1:49:03] than the RUC, that the RUC
[1:49:05] could be set up either to, you
[1:49:06] know, things could be built
[1:49:08] in related
[1:49:09] to low income provisions,
[1:49:11] for example, but also just
[1:49:12] recognizing the gas tax,
[1:49:14] I'm going to fumble my way
[1:49:16] through this. So correct me if
[1:49:17] I get it wrong. The gas tax is
[1:49:19] set up that everybody pays the
[1:49:20] same regardless of, of the, the
[1:49:21] vehicle that they drive and a
[1:49:24] road usage charge. It is really
[1:49:25] based on how much you drive and
[1:49:27] provisions could be built in.
[1:49:29] That takes into account,
[1:49:30] I think that,
[1:49:31] I think the argument was, or
[1:49:32] the, or the explanation was
[1:49:34] that they would actually be
[1:49:35] paying less in a road usage
[1:49:36] charge than they would
[1:49:37] under the gas tax.
[1:49:39] But I probably fumbled that.
[1:49:40] So Ben, help me out.
[1:49:41] >> I think you covered it well.
[1:49:42] Kelly, one
[1:49:43] of our assumptions,
[1:49:44] we've had an assumption
[1:49:45] about having a RUC
[1:49:46] in the future in the region
[1:49:47] in the last couple
[1:49:49] of plans that we've adopted.
[1:49:50] And the assumption has been
[1:49:52] that you could design
[1:49:54] implementation of Iraq
[1:49:55] to address many of the equity
[1:49:56] concerns that people have
[1:49:57] raised in terms of is does
[1:49:59] somebody actually have any sort
[1:50:02] of alternatives to driving?
[1:50:04] Does the nature of say, the
[1:50:07] work that they're doing or the
[1:50:09] reason for the trip, say
[1:50:12] for deliveries and so forth,
[1:50:16] you have to drive in order to
[1:50:18] actually accomplish that work.
[1:50:20] So it's all in the details
[1:50:21] in terms of how these are
[1:50:22] designed and implemented. But
[1:50:24] the assumption has been that we
[1:50:25] can do that and we can look at,
[1:50:26] as the rep
[1:50:29] from FEMSIB was saying
[1:50:31] about the, the retail delivery
[1:50:32] fee, that you can look
[1:50:34] at impacts
[1:50:35] to small businesses,
[1:50:36] you can look at impacts
[1:50:38] in different parts
[1:50:39] of the region and it will be,
[1:50:40] have to, have to be very,
[1:50:41] very carefully designed.
[1:50:42] But you know, entering into it
[1:50:44] with eyes wide open is really
[1:50:45] the approach we should take.
[1:50:48] >> So given that, I think that,
[1:50:52] and also given that we're
[1:50:54] looking 10 years out,
[1:50:55] we should go big on, you know,
[1:51:00] it's going to take a long time
[1:51:01] for the culture to sort of
[1:51:03] shift and appreciate that this
[1:51:05] is a necessary direction. And
[1:51:07] then of course,
[1:51:09] the all the techie problems on
[1:51:10] collecting revenue and so
[1:51:12] forth. But I think we should,
[1:51:14] you know, we should go
[1:51:16] at least moderate if, if not
[1:51:18] higher, as with at the same
[1:51:22] time promoting this as a much
[1:51:25] more socially just way of
[1:51:27] collecting the necessary
[1:51:31] revenue for the roads and also
[1:51:33] towards our climate goals.
[1:51:35] Let's not negotiate
[1:51:38] against ourselves. Thank you.
[1:51:40] >> All right. Sake
[1:51:42] of time here. We're getting
[1:51:43] close to the end
[1:51:44] of our meeting time and I'm
[1:51:45] at a, I'm going to call on
[1:51:46] Council Members Arlingo and
[1:51:47] then I'm going to go to
[1:51:48] Deputy Mayor Arnold
[1:51:50] after that and then we're going
[1:51:51] to move on. Go ahead, Council
[1:51:52] member.
[1:51:54] >> Yeah, I'll make this quick.
[1:51:55] >> Is it fair to assume that
[1:51:57] the road usage charge could be
[1:51:58] based on road wear and vehicle
[1:51:59] weight? It could definitely be
[1:52:06] based on vehicle weight,
[1:52:07] for sure. I mean,
[1:52:09] it all depends
[1:52:10] on how you collect it. It could
[1:52:11] be an odometer read when you
[1:52:13] submit your registration where
[1:52:15] you could do that. And it could
[1:52:17] incorporate vehicle weight,
[1:52:18] could be higher. So, yeah,
[1:52:21] there's lots of opportunities.
[1:52:23] I'm not sure the,
[1:52:24] the road wear one, I,
[1:52:26] if it was tied to the,
[1:52:27] the weight of the vehicle,
[1:52:28] I guess I could see that.
[1:52:29] But otherwise, I'm not sure if
[1:52:31] I'm following that one as
[1:52:32] closely. But there's lots of
[1:52:33] details that you could
[1:52:35] definitely get into with a
[1:52:36] reducer's charge that differ
[1:52:37] from, say, the gas tax. You
[1:52:39] definitely have a lot
[1:52:41] of options.
[1:52:42] >> Thanks. Go ahead. Deputy
[1:52:43] Mayor Arlen
[1:52:44] >> Thank you. And I hope we
[1:52:45] capture a lot
[1:52:46] of these policy discussions
[1:52:48] in the RTP for future
[1:52:50] consideration and
[1:52:51] implementation. To Council
[1:52:53] Member Schneider's point, you
[1:52:55] know, philosophically I think
[1:52:55] there's really opportunities
[1:52:56] with the road usage charge,
[1:52:58] but I want to be realistic.
[1:53:00] As Ben has mentioned,
[1:53:01] we've had this in the plan with
[1:53:02] some assumptions that said the
[1:53:04] legislature was going to act
[1:53:06] and the legislature is going
[1:53:07] to act, and it hasn't up
[1:53:08] to this point. And so I think
[1:53:10] we need to be realistic. And I
[1:53:11] like the idea of what staff has
[1:53:14] put up here as being super
[1:53:15] conservative because the
[1:53:18] assumptions we made
[1:53:19] in previous plans
[1:53:20] about the legislature starting
[1:53:21] to put the road usage
[1:53:23] charge in place
[1:53:24] haven't happened. And
[1:53:25] so I'm concerned
[1:53:26] about doing anything at a
[1:53:28] higher level or doing anything
[1:53:29] earlier than 2035.
[1:53:31] >> Good point.
[1:53:34] >> All right, we. We're going
[1:53:36] to move on now
[1:53:38] to information items. And
[1:53:39] unless you have anything else
[1:53:40] to wrap
[1:53:41] on this.
[1:53:42] >> [ INAUDIBLE ] to close out,
[1:53:43] thank you for that. And I think
[1:53:44] I'm looking to my colleagues
[1:53:45] got a little bit
[1:53:46] of a mixed message. So I think
[1:53:48] what we could do is maybe let's
[1:53:49] run both we'll we'll and come
[1:53:52] back with that information. So
[1:53:54] we have scenario 2B already
[1:53:57] kind of modeled as is. We'll
[1:53:59] work under the assumption that
[1:54:01] the draft plan would include a
[1:54:02] state level rough beginning
[1:54:03] in 2035.
[1:54:04] But we we're not going to
[1:54:05] release the plan so maybe we
[1:54:06] run that and then
[1:54:08] but we'll talk about it more
[1:54:09] in November and see we'll be
[1:54:10] ready for both. If I'm not
[1:54:12] gonna if Craig might want
[1:54:13] to smack me right now but we'll
[1:54:15] give you a little bit more time
[1:54:16] to and we'll come back with
[1:54:18] that information because there
[1:54:19] will be and again as Craig
[1:54:20] mentioned the reason that we
[1:54:22] need this is there that will
[1:54:24] definitely impact demand. So we
[1:54:25] want to make sure that we
[1:54:27] capture that. So we already
[1:54:28] have one run if we go ahead and
[1:54:29] assume it and we run it.
[1:54:30] But we'll come back in
[1:54:31] November and there will still
[1:54:32] be if you if you want
[1:54:33] to pull us back,
[1:54:34] we'll still have time
[1:54:35] to do that. Thank you.
[1:54:38] >> All right. And what do you
[1:54:39] have to share
[1:54:40] on the information items?
[1:54:45] >> Just our ongoing work work
[1:54:47] program progress tracker. So
[1:54:49] things still outside of the RTP
[1:54:50] things still keep moving
[1:54:52] forward. So nothing nothing new
[1:54:54] to report on that.
[1:54:56] >> Okay, with that we our next
[1:54:59] meeting date is Thursday
[1:55:03] November 13th and hope to see
[1:55:04] you all here that our meeting
[1:55:05] is adjourned.