City
Never Mind Paying for Seattle's Tunnel. City May be on the Hook for Bellevue's.
Last week, we published an anxious email from a Seattle City Hall legislative staffer in advance of a sudden Sound Transit board vote to approve the Eastside light rail plan.
The staffer was concerned because the plan included a tunnel in Downtown Bellevue that raised the $2.4 billion Eastside price tag by $300 million. The tunnel was not included in the original plan—the one voters approved in 2008 (including in Bellevue, by 60 percent)—nor had it been part of the board's financial assumptions until now. But some theorize that in order to get a reluctant Bellevue council to go along with Sound Transit's preferred South Bellevue route (the council had wanted an alternate route away from population and business hubs in South Bellevue), the ST Board went ahead with the tunnel.
Bellevue pledged $150 million toward the $300 million cost, but that leaves another $150 million. And thus the nervous Seattle City Hall staffer.
The Sound Transit board is coming up with a financing plan that may require North King County---Seattle's turf in the ST funding plan---to pick up the extra $150 million. That'd be a big problem. Not only are revenues down in the North King subarea, but North King is already on the hook for the most expensive part of the light rail project—getting from downtown Seattle to Capitol Hill and up to Northgate.
Having Seattle put up the other half for Bellevue's tunnel would also violate the subarea equity concept that governs Sound Transit. The concept is that money raised in one subarea pays for projects in that sub area.
This morning, I asked Sound Transit spokesman Geoff Patrick about the possibility of North King picking up half of the tunnel costs.
Here's what he said:
Speaking of the board: Of the five Seattle members, only two voted against the deal—King County Council Member Larry Phillips and Mayor Mike McGinn. (King County Executive Dow Constantine voted for it; as did King County Council Member Joe McDermott. Seattle City Council Member Richard Conlin was not at the vote.)
Phillips and McGinn were, in fact, the only board members to vote 'No' in the 15-2 vote.
I talked to Phillips this morning about his 'No' vote and he told me the deal "got murky real fast," adding that he was uncomfortable that Sound Transit staff was using terms such as "a path to financing."
"That sounds like the old way we used to do things, when we got in trouble," Phillips says, referring to the Sound Transit financial debacle in 2000 that forced them to dramatically scale back the original light rail plans voters approved in 1996.
Irony alert: The subarea equity rule was forced on Sound Transit by now-state AG Rob McKenna—he was a dissident ST board member during his tenure as a King County Council member—as a way of protecting the Eastside from having to help Seattle. The concept continually raised issues for the expensive North King portion of the route, which McKenna used to question the viability of the plan. But now, the concept may be ignored to help McKenna's home turf, Bellevue.
And another turnaround: The reason Bellevue may have to rely on Seattle? Seattle has done better in the recession. East King's projections for revenue to fund light rail are down 26 percent since the recession while Seattle's are down 16 percent.
Pre-recession, the Eastside contribution to the light rail plan, based on subarea revenues, was $2 billion higher than N. King's—$6.4 billion to $4.4 billion.
The staffer was concerned because the plan included a tunnel in Downtown Bellevue that raised the $2.4 billion Eastside price tag by $300 million. The tunnel was not included in the original plan—the one voters approved in 2008 (including in Bellevue, by 60 percent)—nor had it been part of the board's financial assumptions until now. But some theorize that in order to get a reluctant Bellevue council to go along with Sound Transit's preferred South Bellevue route (the council had wanted an alternate route away from population and business hubs in South Bellevue), the ST Board went ahead with the tunnel.
Bellevue pledged $150 million toward the $300 million cost, but that leaves another $150 million. And thus the nervous Seattle City Hall staffer.
The Sound Transit board is coming up with a financing plan that may require North King County---Seattle's turf in the ST funding plan---to pick up the extra $150 million. That'd be a big problem. Not only are revenues down in the North King subarea, but North King is already on the hook for the most expensive part of the light rail project—getting from downtown Seattle to Capitol Hill and up to Northgate.
Having Seattle put up the other half for Bellevue's tunnel would also violate the subarea equity concept that governs Sound Transit. The concept is that money raised in one subarea pays for projects in that sub area.
This morning, I asked Sound Transit spokesman Geoff Patrick about the possibility of North King picking up half of the tunnel costs.
Here's what he said:
This [shifting funds between subareas] is a very speculative matter. The Board has not taken up any proposals to do that, and there would have to be a determination that it was in the interest of the subarea shifting the funds. In the event they did consider it, such a measure would be among a number of elements of a financial plan that will come together for Board review as the project moves forward.
Speaking of the board: Of the five Seattle members, only two voted against the deal—King County Council Member Larry Phillips and Mayor Mike McGinn. (King County Executive Dow Constantine voted for it; as did King County Council Member Joe McDermott. Seattle City Council Member Richard Conlin was not at the vote.)
Phillips and McGinn were, in fact, the only board members to vote 'No' in the 15-2 vote.
I talked to Phillips this morning about his 'No' vote and he told me the deal "got murky real fast," adding that he was uncomfortable that Sound Transit staff was using terms such as "a path to financing."
"That sounds like the old way we used to do things, when we got in trouble," Phillips says, referring to the Sound Transit financial debacle in 2000 that forced them to dramatically scale back the original light rail plans voters approved in 1996.
Irony alert: The subarea equity rule was forced on Sound Transit by now-state AG Rob McKenna—he was a dissident ST board member during his tenure as a King County Council member—as a way of protecting the Eastside from having to help Seattle. The concept continually raised issues for the expensive North King portion of the route, which McKenna used to question the viability of the plan. But now, the concept may be ignored to help McKenna's home turf, Bellevue.
And another turnaround: The reason Bellevue may have to rely on Seattle? Seattle has done better in the recession. East King's projections for revenue to fund light rail are down 26 percent since the recession while Seattle's are down 16 percent.
Pre-recession, the Eastside contribution to the light rail plan, based on subarea revenues, was $2 billion higher than N. King's—$6.4 billion to $4.4 billion.
