Item Number:   8b_motion 
Meeting Date:   October 22, 2019 


1                                                   MOTION 2019-11: 
2                                 A MOTION OF THE PORT OF SEATTLE COMMISSION 
3 
4                           opposing Initiative 976, a ballot proposition that would
5                           significantly hamper the ability of the State of Washington
6                           and local government entities from adequately funding
7                           transportation infrastructure. 
8 
9                           The  title  of  Initiative  976:  Initiative  Measure  No.  976
10                        concerns motor vehicle taxes and fees. This measure would
11                        repeal, reduce, or remove authority to impose certain
12                        vehicle taxes and fees; limit annual motor-vehicle-license
13                        fees to $30, except voter-approved charges; and base
14                        vehicle taxes on Kelley Blue Book value. 
15 
16                                                   PROPOSED 
17                                               OCTOBER 22, 2019 
18 
19                                                 INTRODUCTION 
20 
21    Initiative 976 would jeopardize billions in critical transportation funding ($4.2 billion over six
22    years, according to the state's Office of Financial Management, including funds for critical
23    regional corridors like the Puget Sound Gateway program, voter-approved Sound Transit system
24    expansion projects, municipal road maintenance, and more. 
25 
26                                              TEXT OF THE MOTION 
27 
28    The Port of Seattle Commission hereby expresses its opposition to Initiative 976, a proposal that
29    would drastically reduce the amount of funding available for critical statewide transportation
30    projects. As a public government entity charged with operating transportation facilities in service
31    of regional economic growth and passenger mobility, this initiative poses a direct threat to the
32    Port's ability to carry out its mission. We partner with the State of Washington and municipal
33    partners on infrastructure development and must oppose any effort to hinder the ability of those
34    partners to collect revenue to fund transportation infrastructure. 
35 
36                                     STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION 
37 
38    Under RCW Title 53, the statute that enumerates the powers granted to port districts, ports are
39    charged with the development of transportation facilities. This is the essential function of ports,
40    and an acknowledgment that transportation infrastructurebe it port terminals, an airport

Motion 2019-11  Opposing Initiative 976                                                             Page 1 of 3

41    runway, or a state highway  are shared resources that are developed by government entities for
42    use by the public. Ports were specifically created by voters in Washington state to combat the
43    potential  dominance  of  private  industry  along  the  waterfront,  and  represent  the  core
44    Washington state value that the public owns the waterfront. At the Port of Seattle, we use public
45    resources collected through our taxing authority to leverage private sector investment and
46    partnerships with other public entities to maximize regional economic development. 
47 
48    The Port's partnership with the State of Washington on the replacement of the Alaskan Way
49    Viaduct is a recent and illustrative example of the regional, and indeed statewide, gains that
50    can be made through such partnership. The Port of Seattle contributed $275 million to that
51    project, out of a total cost estimated at $4.1 billion. Other partners included Washington State,
52    City of Seattle and King County. Additional projects where the Port and the State of Washington
53    have partnered include 1) the Puget Sound Gateway Program, connecting growers and shippers
54    in Central and Eastern Washington with seaport and airport facilities needed to get their goods
55    to market, and 2) the FAST Corridor, a critical project to reduce the impact of freight congestion
56    on communities, Sound Transit Link Light Rail to Sea-Tac Airport, and the South Park Bridge, to
57    support failing infrastructure in a near-by Port community. 
58 
59    In addition, Initiative 976 would greatly reduce funding options for cities, who provide vital
60    services such as preservation and construction of roads, and provision of transit services. For
61    cities that use Transportation Benefit Districts, the initiative would eliminate $60 million in
62    transportation revenue every year. The City of Seattle is one such municipality, and it also
63    partnered with the Port on efforts to ensure that our industrial operations on the waterfront can
64    coexist with non-freight users in the city, and promote public safety and efficient movement for
65    all modes. The Safe and Swift Corridor and the Heavy Haul Corridor are both examples of key
66    partnerships with the City that would be jeopardized by the passage of Initiative 976. 
67 
68    The impact of Initiative 976 on transit has troubling implications on transportation equity, and
69    the Port of Seattle Commission has made the promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion a core
70    consideration as we carry out our state-authorized mission to support economic development.
71    Passage of the initiative would not only harm the ability of cities to build infrastructure and
72    partner with entities such as the state and port districts to reduce congestion, it would also
73    diminish the availability of transit services. Transit keeps single-occupancy vehicles off roads,
74    promoting mobility for all modes. But it also is key to providing economic opportunity to
75    historically underserved groups, who may live far from urban centers and need transportation
76    options to support fair employment. Therefore, from a social justice and economic equity
77    perspective, the implications of Initiative 976 are concerning. 
78 
79    In addition to the deleterious impacts Initiative 976 would have on city road and transit funding
80    and state transportation funding across the board, it would also harm Sound Transit 3, approved
81    by voters in 2016. Because of how the initiative is written, it is not clear yet what the exact impact
82    to Sound Transit would be. However, estimates have pointed to a potential $20 billion hit to
83    Sound Transit 3, which was a $54 billion package overall. The success of Sound Transit 3 has broad
84    implications for the Port, including in our efforts to promote light rail access to the airport.

Motion 2019-11  Opposing Initiative 976                                                             Page 2 of 3

85    Meanwhile, the West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions, and the Sounder South Expansion, are
86    key to reducing congestion and speeding the movement of freight, and serve as additional
87    examples of negative outcomes that could result from passage of I-976. 
88 
89    For the reasons outlined in the above statement, the Port of Seattle views potential adoption of
90    Initiative 976 as a direct threat to its core mission of promoting economic development and
91    developing industrial facilities to serve regional trade activity. 
92 
93    ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ATTACHED 
94    Full text of Initiative 976, as submitted to the Washington Secretary of State 
















Motion 2019-11  Opposing Initiative 976                                                             Page 3 of 3