1. Road Services Funding Options Bridges and Roads Task Force October 28, 2015 1

2.  Authorizes about $15 billion over 16 years.  King County will receive $500k in 2016 and 2017 and about $1M per year following from the increase in the gas tax.  Uses of funding restricted to “highway purposes” as stated in the 18 th Amendment.  These funds would be programmed starting in the midbiennium update. 2015 State Transportation Package 2

3.  New Transportation Benefit District (TBD) rules allow the council to implement a countywide $20 vehicle fee, and after 24 months, the fee can go up to $40. (RCW 36.73.065)  County would receive about $17 - $38 million annually.  If imposed by councilmanic vote, it would require crediting cities for the amount they have already approved through local TBD’s.  Countywide TBD would require an interlocal agreement with cities 2015 State Transportation Package 3

4.  Additional Transportation Benefit District options available would require voter approval to raise enough funding.  These include:  0.2% sales tax increase that could raise up to ~$116m annually;  $100 fee per vehicle that could raise up to ~$109m annually. 2015 State Transportation Package 4

5.  Transportation Benefit District authority allows one year excess levy and/or excess levy for capital purposes.  10 cent per thousand property tax lift in county could raise about $42m annually ($4.2m per 1 cent) Lift 1% cap on property taxes 5

6.  User charges are currently being investigated by the Washington State Transportation Commission. Oregon State is moving into a second level of a pilot project on implementing a road user charge.  There are low to high tech methods that could be used to implement such a financing mechanism, including: license plate camera technology, odometer readings, and a GPS based data collection system.  Each method has its pros and cons, costs for implementation and revenue collection, and timelines for implementation.  Need to be implemented on a regional or statewide basis to be effective.  Potential revenue is unknown as these fees aren’t currently broadly authorized. 6 Create a toll/user fee solution

7.  Transportation Utility District fees are paid to jurisdictions by property owners in those jurisdictions based on the amount of trips the property is estimated to generate.  A Utility District, under most state constitutions and laws, must charge fees based upon a direct measurable relationship between the fee and the benefits received.  Funds raised are generally used for local streets such as street improvements and maintenance, and street operational improvements  Would require State Legislative action to provide authorization for county use. Transportation Utility Fee 7

8. Would need State Legislature to approve an MVET authority for local governments to collect. In KC a 0.8% MVET would collect ~$75m annually. Reinstate the MVET 8

9.  Would need State Legislature to approve an impact fee that the county could collect in cities and use for unincorporated areas.  Impact fee for unincorporated area would collect little revenue due to very limited developable properties. Impact Fees 9

10.  Currently include Road Improvement District (RID) and Local Improvement District (LID) tools that allow property owners to establish a district boundary specifically for a transportation improvement.  It would be expensive for homeowners to fund large projects. Crowd-funding for Road Fixes 10

11.  Statewide, total lottery proceeds for public programs is ~$130m to ~$160m annually.  Would need the state to authorize specific game or dedicated fund for KC Roads.  Unknown whether there would be interest for a narrow purpose. Lottery Game for Roads 11

12.  Automated collection of donations at the gas pump. “Would you like to contribute $1, $5 or $10 to help roads?” Probable low level of revenue produced.  Tax auto parts. Would need to tax sales in cities, currently no state authority. Probable low level of revenue produced. Other Ideas 12