Proposition 2 - Street Pavement Overlays
The following Frequently Asked Questions has been prepared to provide additional information to the public and to address some of the more common questions we are getting about Proposition 2. Additional information may be forthcoming in the next several days concerning Propositions 1 and 3.
Q: What exactly would Proposition 2 provide for?
A: Proposition 2, if approved by a majority of Edmonds voters, would temporarily raise the local portion of property taxes by approximately 17.26 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation which is estimated to provide $1 million each year for a three-year period to pave streets in Edmonds.
Q: What else could the money be used for?
A: Proposition 2 limits the use of any new money raised to street paving projects only.
Q: What would this cost an average Edmonds homeowner?
A: According to the Snohomish County Assessor, the average Edmonds home is valued at $375,000 in 2011. The $0.1726 voted increase would add $64.71 to the annual tax bill for this average home. The estimated total 2012 property tax bill for this same home would be approximately $3,750. Proposition 2 would increase that by $64.71 or 1.7%.
Q: Why is the City putting this measure on the ballot at this time?
A: A majority of the Edmonds City Council voted to give citizens an opportunity to decide whether or not to re-start a paving program. The City has not regularly paved streets since 2008. The only paving project done since then was funded by a one-time grant of federal stimulus money in 2009. That 2009 project paved Dayton Street from SR104 to 5th Avenue South and 212th Street from Five Corners to 76th Ave W. No transportation funding has been made available since that time for paving projects.
Q: How would streets be selected for paving? Is there a pre-existing list of projects already planned?
A: The City does not have a "cast in stone" list of paving projects should Proposition 2 receive approval.
The "Top Ten" list that was discussed at the Levy Forum meeting, and is being posted on the City's website, is merely a numerical reporting of the worst rated streets in Edmonds based on their most recent Observed Condition Index (OCI). All of the street segments in our database are re-rated every two years using state approved protocols administered by employees specifically trained in those techniques. The "Top Ten" list is actually two lists. One is composed of our worst-rated local streets (mostly residential streets) and the other is our worst-rated collector/arterial street segments. Staff's recommendation, should Proposition 2 pass, would be to split the funding raised equally between local streets and arterial streets. This would ensure that significant progress is made addressing the needs in both our residential communities and on our arterial street system.
Top Ten Streets Rated Severe to Poor Certainly, the basic condition of the street would be the primary factor in developing an actual project list to be put out to bid. But there would be, and should be, other criteria considered. Specifically for arterial streets, we would develop a matrix which weighed both the condition of the street and the traffic volumes carried on it. It makes sense that the worst-rated, busiest arterials would be targeted for improvement first. These streets are, overall, the most important to the community in terms of commerce, public safety, and commuting to and from work. Another complexity that should be considered for both arterial streets and local streets would be other capital projects planned for the street. We are currently pursuing, for example, an ambitious water line replacement program and will soon be starting a similar program for our sewer collection system. It would be inefficient and unwise to pave streets without coordinating closely with both our own utilities as well as with the capital replacement programs for telephone, electric, gas and other “dry” utilities that have franchises to locate in the City’s streets. Nothing so inflames the public as when they see a new street being cut in the first few years of its life. It always sounds good to say that we will strictly enforce a “no cut” policy for the first, say, five years after paving a street. That approach, however, has never been entirely successful. What does work is to coordinate with all of these utilities closely upfront, before paving, and try to minimize their need to open the street later by encouraging them to do their work first. This balancing act can affect the sequence of paving individual street segments. For these reasons a paving program, developed in a deliberate fashion, can be a complex process. So what would be the best approach to developing a specific project list?
Staff would prepare, if Proposition 2 passes, a recommended policy for City Council and the public that outlines a process for producing an annual project list. The process should include the considerations and features listed above and any others added as a result of Council input and public comment. That policy should then be followed to the letter. One of the elements of a policy should be a communication strategy for getting accurate and timely information out to our citizens so they will know what is coming and when, and can follow our progress.
Q: Will paving be concentrated only in the downtown area or only in the larger "bowl" portion of the City?
A: No, the criteria adopted by Council would be developed as outlined above and applied uniformly throughout the city. One recommendation that staff would likely make to the Council for inclusion in the paving project policy would be to set aside a fixed portion of the funding for use on local streets, i.e. streets in primarily residential areas. This would ensure that all residential areas would be able to qualify for paving and they would be compared to other residential streets rather than to arterial streets carrying high traffic volumes.
Q: What is the current condition of City streets?
A: The City assesses the condition of its streets every two years using state-approved criteria. A rating of 1-5, with 1 being excellent and 5 being severe, is assigned to each street segment based on pavement condition. Existing pavement conditions of City streets rated poor (4) to severe (5) can be viewed by clicking on the map link.
(2.77 MB 
)Q: Is the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) $20 annual vehicle license fee being used to pave City streets?
A: No. The City Council allocated this funding to help replace lost transportation revenues from the 2009 economic downturn and previous Washington State initiative measures (I-695, I-722, I-776, & I-747). The TBD revenue funds on-going street operations and maintenance such as pot-hole and other point repairs of paved surfaces, pavement striping and markers, street lights, signal maintenance, electrical expenses for signals and street lights, vegetation control, and crack sealing. This includes all labor, equipment, materials, and supplies necessary to maintain these systems. The City has only two current sources of revenue to provide this street maintenance work, gas tax and TBD revenue.
Q: What happens if Proposition 2 fails to receive voter approval?
A: If voters do not approve Proposition 2 the City will continue the search for funding to re-start a local paving program. It is unclear where that funding might come from. In the meantime the only paving that will occur will be on a few street segments where City utilities have badly damaged the surface and are required to re-pave the street. The streets paved in this way are seldom the ones that need paving the most. Without an on-going paving program we can expect the City’s overall Observed Condition Index (OCI) to continue to decline over time and the cost to fix our worst streets will increase rapidly. This happens when pavement failures are not addressed in a timely way and, as a result, the street base below the pavement begins to fail as well.