PDA

View Full Version : C-Tran taxing bill fails to elicit vote


Chief
02-21-2008, 07:40 PM
http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/02/02212008_CTran-taxing-bill-fails-to-elicit-vote.cfm

Thursday, February 21, 2008
By KATHIE DURBIN, Columbian staff writer

OLYMPIA — A bill that would have allowed C-Tran to establish a new taxing district within its service area to help pay for a light rail line serving Clark County died in the House Tuesday after Speaker Frank Chopp declined to bring it to the floor for a vote.

Chopp said through a spokesman that the House leadership didn’t have a chance to work on the bill during the short 2008 session, but he would be open to taking a look at it in 2009.

The bill, co-sponsored by Vancouver Democratic Reps. Bill Fromhold and Jim Moeller, would have allowed nine transit agencies in the state to create new special-purpose taxing districts within their boundaries for the purpose of financing and operating light rail lines or bus rapid transit.

Those agencies would have been authorized to impose taxes only on citizens who would benefit from “high-capacity transit,” defined as projects that operate on exclusive rights-of-way and provide “a substantially higher level of passenger capacity, speed and service frequency” than traditional public transportation systems, such as bus lines that operate on general-purpose roads.

The Columbia River Crossing Project will include a high-capacity transit component, likely a light rail line, which will serve a portion of Clark County along the I-5 corridor.

C-Tran spokesman Scott Patterson said the line might extend only as far north as Clark College. “The furthest north it would go would be 39th and Main,” he said. If the bill eventually passed and C-Tran decided to implement it, the agency’s board of directors would draw a boundary for the purposes of funding the project, he said. “It’s too soon to say what those boundaries would be.”

C-Tran already has signaled its intent to seek voter approval of a sales tax increase to pay for operation and maintenance of a light rail line. But under existing law, it would have to ask for voter approval of the tax increase throughout its service area, including in communities such as Yacolt and La Center that likely would not use the light rail line.

“It’s C-Tran’s desire to find equitable financing solutions for high-capacity transit in Clark County,” said Tim Leavitt, chairman of the transit agency’s board of directors.
“Specifically, that means asking those folks who benefit the most from high-capacity lines or segments to be the individuals who really bear the brunt of such a system. It’s really an effort to find equity in the costs for high-capacity transit.”

Under the bill, transit agencies would have been authorized to pay for the new services through a variety of taxes: an employee payroll tax of up to $2 per month per employee; a rental car sales and use tax of up to 2.172 percent, or a sales and use tax not to exceed 0.9 percent. Any tax levied would require voter approval.

Transit agencies that serve populations of more than 100,000 would have been eligible. King, Pierce and Snohomish counties were specifically exempted from the bill.

The special-purpose taxing district would be a tool available to C-Tran as it works with other government agencies to develop a funding package for the proposed new Columbia River bridge and related I-5 corridor improvements, Patterson said.

“It’s not an absolute certainty that we would have used it,” he said. “It wasn’t something the agency went into saying, ‘This is something we have to have to make the Columbia River Crossing work.’ ”

The Columbia River Crossing project is not the only reason C-Tran promoted the legislation, Patterson said. The Regional Transportation Council that is designing the crossing is studying other corridors in Clark County that might be candidates for high-capacity transit.

Waterbuffalo
02-21-2008, 11:27 PM
"he Regional Transportation Council that is designing the crossing is studying other corridors in Clark County that might be candidates for high-capacity transit."

I'd like to refute this CLAIM!

I was at two of the RTC meetings over this past week. They were considering Corridors to be saved for future expansion of ANY option that county chooses to use from BRT and bus to readed yes, Light Rail through out the community.

But most of the discussion was based on areas that population felt would benefit from a High Capacity Transit system. There was a couple people who vehemently were opposed to any consideration of extending any thing related to Light Rail even into 2030.

Chief
02-22-2008, 07:34 AM
Good points WB, but you have 2 of the biggest liberals in Vancouver crafting new ways for the City to impose taxes in order to pay for Loot Rail.

The only saving grace is that they have not figured out how to just impose these taxes without a vote. That day is probably coming soon, and uber-libs like these two and Craig Pridemore are no doubt moving in that direction.

Keep in mind that it is problems like this that the Bi-State Cooperation Committee along with Portlan's Metro is actively working to find a way around.

Developing...

Waterbuffalo
02-22-2008, 10:20 AM
Going to note #2 there have been many voices (outside of the Cave-in Bunch) at the two RTC meetings and other places that are pushing back on Light Rail.

Just on a side note, is there a way to do an initiative type thing like Tim Eyman does at the state level?

remembers your comments about Patella on this subject..

Chief
02-22-2008, 06:27 PM
Initiative on what? We need to be careful about what we insist on voting about, as well as who starts what petitions, if it comes to that.

Again, there are people in Clark Conty Government who are working with Rex Burkholder and Portland's Metro to figure out a way around the required votes by Clark County taxpayers.

One way or another, this is going to require a vote, no matter how shitty the line is diminished, no matter if the Feds can pay for all of the construction or not.

Tim Leavitt has been pushing this concept pretty hard, and I wonder if he intends to base a race for Mayor on it??

Keep in mind that regardless of what the Neighborhoods think, there are powerful business and Union interests in Clark County who want Light Rail into Vancouver no matter what it takes. Identity Clark County and their trained public mouthpieces in Olympia are doing everythign they can to help out. If they can only get it across the river on the Columbia Crossing Project, they figure they have it made.

And as long as this area insists on sending people to Olympia like Jim Moeller, Bill Fromhold, Jim Dunn, et al; this is the kind of assault we can continue to expect.

Waterbuffalo
02-23-2008, 04:36 PM
I was wondeering if there was a way to do an initiative process on the subject or get a VOTE by the people whether it does or does not come before the voters. That's all I was saying..

"Tim Leavitt has been pushing this concept pretty hard, and I wonder if he intends to base a race for Mayor on it??"

It could very well be. I said more than a year ago I think Tim was positioning and prostrating himself to run for mayor. I think its a good thing that he is in the RTC board and C-tran board, so he can learn about what IS going on with transportation and other issues related to Clark County.

Do I think he'll push for Light Rail? From my watching him at the C-tran board, he's quieter than Marc Boldt.. So its very hard to read him. If you want to know the answer to that questions Chief, please ask him??

"Keep in mind that regardless of what the Neighborhoods think, there are powerful business and Union interests in Clark County who want Light Rail into Vancouver no matter what it takes."

Hey CHIEF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-) I should cut and paste this one just FOR YOU! Could not agree with you more..