City Hall
No Consensus On Size, Composition of City Transportation Ballot Measure
City council members bickered politely (mostly) this afternoon over the details of a potential November (or 2012) ballot measure to pay for transportation.
The council, meeting as the Transportation Benefits District (TBD) board, disagreed over how large the measure should be (proposals ranged from Jean Godden's $40 vehicle license fee to Mike O'Brien's $80 proposal), how long the fee should be levied (most proposals would last eight years, but O'Brien's would last 12), what the balance of projects should be (Godden and other council members leaned toward spending more on road maintenance, but O'Brien wanted more for transit and bike and pedestrian projects), what the specific projects in each category should be (O'Brien wants to study fixed rail, Nick Licata is opposed) and whether the measure should go on the ballot this year at all (Sally Clark and others expressed concern that a local ballot measure could dampen support for other November proposals, like a temporary $20 license fee to provide emergency funding for Metro).
That's a lot to absorb, so here's a visual breakdown of the proposals. CTAC III stands for Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee III, the group that spent seven months coming up with recommendations for the council; VLF stands for vehicle license fee. From left, the proposals come from CTAC, Jean Godden, Tom Rasmussen, and Mike O'Brien.
Rasmussen opened the discussion by making the case for his compromise eight-year, $60 plan, which breaks down the transit/bike-ped/road maintenance dollars along roughly in the same proportion as CTAC's $80 proposal.
Next, Godden argued for her smaller $40 plan, which skews heavily toward road maintenance than transit and bike and ped alternatives.
Finally, O'Brien argued that his longer-term, more expensive plan (he made the case for it earlier today on his blog) would do more for transportation and low-income transit users than the lower-cost alternatives.
Pointing to city numbers showing that low-income people are less likely to have cars, O'Brien said, "The types of investments we're able to make would significantly improve those folks' ability to get around the city without burdening them" financially. As for the 60 percent of low-income people who do own cars, O'Brien said he would introduce a resolution (draft here) committing the city to mitigate the cost of the license fee on low-income residents, perhaps in the form of a rebate.
However, city council president Richard Conlin disputed O'Brien's numbers, saying that he had asked the city demographer to do a deeper analysis of the numbers. Conlin's research showed that most of O'Brien's low-income, carless residents either lived downtown---and thus had easy access to transit---or were students "with other means of support or who otherwise are engaged primarily in educational activities."
Godden piled on, questioning O'Brien's claim that he cares about street maintenance when his proposal actually included less money for street maintenance overall than hers ($8 million a year, compared to $10 million a year under Godden's proposal). "It does seem a bit odd that he would be so eloquent in talking about the need to take care of our streets when his proposal has less money for street maintenance than mine," Godden said sarcastically. Sally Bagshaw added that she would only support a ballot measure that focuses on "maintenance and mobility," indicating that she was leaning toward Godden's proposed mix of projects, if not necessarily the $40 fee level.
Ultimately, the council seems likely to adopt some sort of compromise proposal, probably around $60, perhaps with a larger percentage devoted to road maintenance and less to transit and bike infrastructure. Rasmussen, Harrell, Clark, Conlin, Bagshaw, Conlin, and Licata all expressed strong reservations about putting the full $80 on the ballot, with Harrell claiming to have talked to "hundreds and hundreds of people," all of whom were reluctant to support an $80 fee.
The council, meeting as the TBD board, will hold a public hearing at city hall Wednesday night at 5:30.
The council, meeting as the Transportation Benefits District (TBD) board, disagreed over how large the measure should be (proposals ranged from Jean Godden's $40 vehicle license fee to Mike O'Brien's $80 proposal), how long the fee should be levied (most proposals would last eight years, but O'Brien's would last 12), what the balance of projects should be (Godden and other council members leaned toward spending more on road maintenance, but O'Brien wanted more for transit and bike and pedestrian projects), what the specific projects in each category should be (O'Brien wants to study fixed rail, Nick Licata is opposed) and whether the measure should go on the ballot this year at all (Sally Clark and others expressed concern that a local ballot measure could dampen support for other November proposals, like a temporary $20 license fee to provide emergency funding for Metro).
That's a lot to absorb, so here's a visual breakdown of the proposals. CTAC III stands for Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee III, the group that spent seven months coming up with recommendations for the council; VLF stands for vehicle license fee. From left, the proposals come from CTAC, Jean Godden, Tom Rasmussen, and Mike O'Brien.
Rasmussen opened the discussion by making the case for his compromise eight-year, $60 plan, which breaks down the transit/bike-ped/road maintenance dollars along roughly in the same proportion as CTAC's $80 proposal.
Next, Godden argued for her smaller $40 plan, which skews heavily toward road maintenance than transit and bike and ped alternatives.
Finally, O'Brien argued that his longer-term, more expensive plan (he made the case for it earlier today on his blog) would do more for transportation and low-income transit users than the lower-cost alternatives.
Pointing to city numbers showing that low-income people are less likely to have cars, O'Brien said, "The types of investments we're able to make would significantly improve those folks' ability to get around the city without burdening them" financially. As for the 60 percent of low-income people who do own cars, O'Brien said he would introduce a resolution (draft here) committing the city to mitigate the cost of the license fee on low-income residents, perhaps in the form of a rebate.
However, city council president Richard Conlin disputed O'Brien's numbers, saying that he had asked the city demographer to do a deeper analysis of the numbers. Conlin's research showed that most of O'Brien's low-income, carless residents either lived downtown---and thus had easy access to transit---or were students "with other means of support or who otherwise are engaged primarily in educational activities."
Godden piled on, questioning O'Brien's claim that he cares about street maintenance when his proposal actually included less money for street maintenance overall than hers ($8 million a year, compared to $10 million a year under Godden's proposal). "It does seem a bit odd that he would be so eloquent in talking about the need to take care of our streets when his proposal has less money for street maintenance than mine," Godden said sarcastically. Sally Bagshaw added that she would only support a ballot measure that focuses on "maintenance and mobility," indicating that she was leaning toward Godden's proposed mix of projects, if not necessarily the $40 fee level.
Ultimately, the council seems likely to adopt some sort of compromise proposal, probably around $60, perhaps with a larger percentage devoted to road maintenance and less to transit and bike infrastructure. Rasmussen, Harrell, Clark, Conlin, Bagshaw, Conlin, and Licata all expressed strong reservations about putting the full $80 on the ballot, with Harrell claiming to have talked to "hundreds and hundreds of people," all of whom were reluctant to support an $80 fee.
The council, meeting as the TBD board, will hold a public hearing at city hall Wednesday night at 5:30.
