[Transit] Transportation Impact Fees -- DRAFT resolution to review

Tue Jul 18 17:32:47 PDT 2023

Wes, your comment reminded me that when I re-floated this issue on the MASS list one person (David Seater) replied with an additional concern, below. My understanding from Lisa Herbold is that we actually do need the project list to be added to the comp plan at this stage, and personally I’m not too worried that those projects will be deprioritized for other funding in practice, but I guess we don’t have a guarantee of this— if I manage to get ahold of Herbold this week I’ll bring up this concern and see what she says.

- Katie

"If the only way Council could enact an impact fee is to have it included in the comp plan then I agree that it should be there so that in the future we have it as a funding option. Personally I'm not sure they're a good idea; I share many of the concerns that CM Herbold addressed in her response.

As far as the project list, my worry is that by putting specific projects on a list for "TBD if we pass an impact fee" then we risk those projects not getting funding by other means. If impact fees are never passed then the projects on that list, which presumably are important/impactful, might never get funded. It would be all too easy for people to say, "well, we should use this grant money for a project that is not on the impact fee list because those will get funded eventually."

While I would want an impact fee proposal to include specifics about what it will fund, I think that having a project list before any revenue is even proposed is putting the cart before the horse. It feels a lot like the 2015 Levy, making grand promises of projects that in reality were not supported by revenue and were eventually scaled back or cut entirely."

> On Jul 18, 2023, at 5:18 PM, Wes Mills <wesmills at wesmills.com> wrote:
> 
> It’s funny, I had to go back and look at the email again because my brain “spell checked” raising to raiding any time it’s next to STBD...
> 
> I think it’s worth supporting, even if the city doesn’t use it right now.  In addition to what’s below, I would like us to be on record as saying “we thought this was a good idea within this framework” so that when the next Council comes along and decides to repave a five-lane road on the grounds that a commuter bus runs there or something, we can say “nope, that’s not what we asked for”.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023, at 17:12, Katie Wilson wrote:
>> Thanks, Peter and Harry. And a quick correction, I meant “raiding STBD funds” not “raising”— as described here <https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/11/25/alex-pedersen-raids-transit-funding-for-bridge-maintenance-dollars/>.
>> 
>>> On Jul 18, 2023, at 4:20 PM, Peter Campbell <odell.campbell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Still have little experience with this but what you say Katie (and Harry) makes a lot of sense and the draft looks good. Support.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 15:23 Harry Maher <harryb.maher at gmail.com <mailto:harryb.maher at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> I agree--the devil will be in the details, as always, and it would have been better to have MOB to work with, but we shouldn't shoot it down now.
>>> 
>>> FWIW, they could set the fees so they are not high enough on their own to impact any given project to the point where it wouldn't be built... but I do understand the intersection with MHA, building codes, REET, already high property taxes, etc. could push investment that would have gone into housing to places outside of Seattle or different sectors (as we may already seeing w/ reduced building permits). But we need the money... It's definitely a tricky proposition, but for now I'm on board. Seconded!
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 1:01 PM Katie Wilson <katie at transitriders.org <mailto:katie at transitriders.org>> wrote:
>>> Hi Transit Crew,
>>> 
>>> I’m thinking of bringing a resolution on transportation impact fees to Thursday’s membership meeting— see the draft below— and wanted to ask if people have opinions/feedback. There was some discussion among MASS coalition organizations about this earlier this year, and in the end most organizations felt reluctant to support impact fees (even though many of us had been involved in developing the original proposal with O’Brien’s office) for several reasons including:
>>> 
>>> General mistrust of CM Herbold because of her role in raising STBD funds in last fall’s budget process, and extra mistrust of CM Pedersen (who also supports impact fees) because he’s generally anti-development.
>>> Worries that transportation impact fees could actually deter housing development especially in the context of a housing market slowdown.
>>> 
>>> However, there was also quite a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of the proposal. We thought Herbold was proposing a full-fledged impact fees program, whereas in fact she was just trying to get a project list added to the Comprehensive Plan, which would enable a program to be designed at a later date. So the debate about rates and impacts on development could be had then. But if we don’t add the project list, it’s much less likely that it will be an option moving forward.
>>> 
>>> Personally I feel it’s worthwhile keeping the Transportation Impact Fees option open as a funding source, especially knowing the dire budget situation that Seattle is heading towards. That’s why I think it’s worth getting on board with this initial action, even if we have some concerns and we’re not totally on board with the specifics of a program. (It’s worth noting that neither Herbold nor Pedersen will be around when a program would ultimately be designed…)
>>> 
>>> Anyway, happy to try to provide more details, but that’s probably enough for now. Any thoughts?
>>> 
>>> - Katie
>>> 
>>> ———————
>>> 
>>> Resolution #173 on Transportation Impact Fees - DRAFT
>>> 
>>> WHEREAS in 2019, TRU and transportation and climate allies worked with Seattle Councilmember Mike O’Brien on a proposal for Transportation Impact Fees that would be paid by developers to fund multimodal transportation projects; and
>>> 
>>> WHEREAS that work was put on hold by a combination of SEPA appeals, Councilmember O’Brien’s departure from office, and the COVID-19 pandemic; and
>>> 
>>> WHEREAS Councilmember Lisa Herbold’s office has now updated the list of potentially eligible projects that were identified by advocates in 2019, and is hoping to add this list to the Comprehensive Plan this fall; and
>>> 
>>> WHEREAS some of our allies who were involved in this work in 2019 are now worried that transportation impact fees could deter the development of new housing, among other concerns; and
>>> 
>>> WHEREAS adding the project list to the Comprehensive Plan does not by itself create a transportation impact fee program, it merely allows the Council begin consideration of developing and adopting legislation for such a program,
>>> 
>>> THEREFORE BE IT
>>> 
>>> RESOLVED that TRU supports adding the Transportation Impact Fees project list to the Comprehensive Plan.
>>> 
>>> RESOLVED that TRU will communicate this support to Seattle City Councilmembers and to our transportation and climate allies.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Katie Wilson
>>> General Secretary
>>> Transit Riders Union
>>> https://transitriders.org <https://transitriders.org/>
>>> 206-781-7204
>>> 
>>> The Transit Riders Union is a democratic organization of working and poor people, including students, seniors, and people with disabilities, taking control over our own lives, and building up the power we need to change society for the good of humanity and of the planet. We will fight to preserve, expand, and improve the public transportation system in Seattle and beyond, so that every human being has access to safe, affordable, and reliable public transit.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Transit mailing list
>>> Transit at transitriders.org <mailto:Transit at transitriders.org>
>>> http://lists.transitriders.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/transit
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Transit mailing list
>>> Transit at transitriders.org <mailto:Transit at transitriders.org>
>>> http://lists.transitriders.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/transit
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Transit mailing list
>> Transit at transitriders.org <mailto:Transit at transitriders.org>
>> http://lists.transitriders.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/transit
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Transit mailing list
> Transit at transitriders.org <mailto:Transit at transitriders.org>
> http://lists.transitriders.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/transit

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.transitriders.org/pipermail/transit/attachments/20230718/2fcba082/attachment-0001.html>