It appears that for the second straight year, voters in Snohomish, King and Pierce counties will have the opportunity to vote to tax themselves for transportation improvements.
Since last June, all 25 council members from the three counties have been meeting about once a month to discuss projects and funding, said Snohomish County Council member Gary Nelson, who chairs the committee. A plan is being developed and is expected to be proposed for the ballot either in September or November, officials said.
The Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) was authorized by last year’s state Legislature as a way for counties to get together to propose local taxes to voters for transportation. The first meeting of the council members was June 21, Nelson said.
Members knew before Referendum 51 went to the ballot that even if it were to pass, many needs would have remained, Nelson said. The failed referendum would have provided about half the funding for the tri-county area that council members are looking at proposing to voters through the RTID, he said.
“I think it’s very, very likely” that the plan will go to the voters, said Snohomish County Council member Dave Gossett.
The three-county package totalling approximately $14.4 billion will likely include a sales tax increase beginning at three-tenths of a cent per dollar and rising to half-a-cent per dollar over a period of 10 years, Nelson said. It also likely will include a flat $75 vehicle license fee and a motor vehicle excise tax of two-tenths of a percent of the value of the vehicle. These three taxes would raise $12.3 billion – $7.7 billion from King County, $2.4 billion from Pierce and $2.1 from Snohomish.
Still iffy is setting the amount for a three-county gas tax increase, which could range from 4 to 6 cents per gallon. If the increase is set at 5 cents per gallon, it would raise $2.1 billion, with $1.2 billion coming from King County, $500 million from Pierce and $400 million from Snohomish.
The council members plan to conduct hearings and workshops in February, March and April and have the plan firmed up by May, Nelson said.
The project list is more firm in Snohomish County than in King, according to Gossett. The single biggest project for his own district, he said, is the improvement of Highway 524 (196th Street SW) between Interstate 5 and Highway 527.
“That road really does need it,” he said.
King County Council member Carolyn Edmonds, who represents Shoreline, Lake Forest Park and areas east, said she is pushing for two projects to be included: funding of the Aurora Corridor project from 165th Street north to the county line ($53 million), and improvements to Highway 522. The outlook for those being included is good, she said.
“There’s a high priority being placed on funding projects that can be completed,” the Shoreline resident said.
Nelson rattled off a long list of projects in Snohomish County. These include funding the proposed multimodal train-ferry-bus station in Edmonds, called Edmonds Crossing, to the tune of $126 million – a good portion of the estimated $160 million it will take to build the project to its maximum capacity. Another $26 million would be available to the city of Edmonds for intersection improvements related to Edmonds Crossing, with the city having to come up with a 30 percent match because it would be classified a city project, Nelson said.
Other projects include widening Highway 99 from 148th Street SW to 128th; improving the intersection at I-5 and 128th to a full clover leaf; widening Highway 9 to five lanes; auxiliary lanes on I-5 between Highway 526 and U.S. 2; improving the 41st Street overpass in Everett; widening the U.S. 2 trestle between Everett and Lake Stevens, and building the Mukilteo multimodal ferry terminal.
Some money would also likely go to commuter rail on existing tracks between Everett and Seattle, and transit signal, parking and safety improvements, Nelson said. As it stands now, no more than 10 percent of these projects can be financed with gas-tax funds because they are not part of the state highway system, but Nelson said “we’d like for the Legislature to help us” change that.
For that to make a difference, the Legislature will have to authorize the RTID to even ask for a gas-tax increase. That part was missing from the original legislation, likely because R-51 was coming up, Nelson said. Other elements of the authorizing legislation need to be clarified before the RTID can sell bonds, he said. Gossett called these considerations “technical in nature” and expects them to be taken care of.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
