SEATTLE.GOV City Services Staff Directory About Seattle City Contacts
 SEARCH: 

2000 Seattle Election Information

Home
Filings
Campaigns
Total
Contributions

Total
Expenditures

Contributor
Search

Lists of
Contributors

Employers of
Contributors

Contributors
by Type

Contrib. by
Neighborhood

Contrib. by
Size

Expenditures
by Type

Indep. Expend.
& PACs

Historical
Comparisons

Primary Election
Voters' Guide

General Election
Voters' Guide
Compliance
Rates

Law, Rules
and Filing

General Election Voters' Guide
Prop 2 - Initiative 53 - Monorail - Ballot Title

General
Election
Voters'
Guide
Introduction
 
Prop 1
Parks Levy

Statement
For and
Rebuttal


Statement
Against and
Rebuttal


Title &
Explanation


Complete Text

 
Prop 2
Init 53
Monorail

Statement
For and
Rebuttal


Statement
Against and
Rebuttal


Title &
Explanation

Complete Text

 
 
 

Ballot Title


The City of Seattle Initiative Measure Number 53 concerns the planning, funding and possible construction of a monorail system.

This measure would require the City to provide $6,000,000 to fund operation of the Elevated Transportation Company, including preparation of a monorail funding and construction plan. The measure outlines required elements of the plan, which would be implemented if approved by voters. The City also would be required to reserve up to $200 million in councilmanic bonding capacity, to be used for monorail construction if voters approved the plan. A transit authority would supervise system construction and operation.

Should this measure be enacted into law?


City Attorney's Explanatory Statement


1. Background—Initiative 41

Seattle voters approved Initiative 41 in November 1997. I-41 created a public development authority, the Elevated Transportation Company or ETC, to build, maintain and operate an elevated, electrically-powered, rubber-tired mass transit system consisting of specified stations and terminals serving the four quadrants of Seattle and running through downtown. The system would be generally “X” shaped and would lie entirely within the City.

The system was to have been funded by private money; federal, state and local grants; and if necessary by an increase in the City’s business and occupation tax and/or by councilmanic revenue bonds. (Councilmanic revenue bonds are bonds that can be issued without a vote of the public, and for which only revenue generated by the project financed by the bonds is committed for repayment.) I-41 did not specify how much money the ETC could spend on the transit system, and did not raise specific amounts from particular sources. Nor did it raise the City’s business and occupation tax or authorize any particular bond issue, but instead directed the City Council to do so if necessary.

2. The Law as it Exists Now – the City Council’s Passage of Ordinance 120049 Amending Initiative 41

In July 2000 the Seattle City Council passed Ordinance 120049 (the “Ordinance”), amending I-41. Among other things the Ordinance dissolved the ETC and deleted I-41’s direction to the City Council to make funds available for the system if necessary by either issuing bonds or raising the City’s business and occupation tax.

In place of the ETC, the Ordinance created a citizens’ advisory committee called the Elevated Transit Committee (the “Committee”). The City is currently undertaking a study, called the “Intermediate Capacity Transit Service Study,” or ICT, to examine the City’s transit needs and options and the cost and feasibility of new transit services along several routes within the City using various technology options. The Committee is to review and analyze the results of the ICT where elevated transit is identified as a feasible option. The City Council has directed the Executive to report on the ICT results and a proposed implementation plan by February 2000.

Following the Committee’s review of the ICT results, it is to make recommendations to the City Council about the feasibility for monorail technology to serve various transportation corridors. In making its recommendations the Committee is to weigh the costs and benefits of other transit technologies studied by the ICT and identify and seek funding sources for monorail construction focusing on revenue outside the City’s general fund or debt capacity. The Committee will cease to exist after March 2001 unless extended by a future ordinance.

3. If Initiative 53 Passes

I-53 provides that the ETC would be re-established and that the City would be required to fund the ETC, including the ETC’s preparation of a funding and construction plan for a monorail system (the “Plan”). It also provides that the City would be required to reserve certain councilmanic “limited tax general obligation,” or LTGO, bonding capacity to be used for monorail construction if voters approved the Plan in a subsequent election. (LTGO bonds are bonds that can be issued without a vote of the public, and for which general taxes are committed for repayment.)

Specifically, I-53 provides that the City would be required to: (1) deposit $20,000 into the ETC’s bank account to carry out the ETC’s purposes; (2) provide $6 million to the ETC (either from the City’s general fund or by issuing LTGO bonds) to fund ETC operations, including the Plan’s preparation; and (c) reserve at least $125 million and up to $200 million in LTGO bonding capacity, to be used for all or part of the initial public contribution for monorail construction if voters approved the Plan in a subsequent vote. The City would have to maintain the bonding capacity reserve until voters accepted or rejected the Plan.

The ETC would have up to two years to complete the Plan for a grade-separated monorail system that used public rights of way as much as possible, and used rubber wheels or was substantially as quiet as a system using rubber wheels. The system would have routes linking neighborhoods in Northeast, Northwest, South and/ or West Seattle with downtown. The Plan also would set forth phases of construction for the system, as well as its technology, basic engineering and financing. System financing could be “any combination of public or private financing, or any type of public-private partnership;” however, no public funds could be spent without additional voter approval. Finally, the Plan would outline the structure of a “Seattle Popular Transit Authority,” which would succeed the ETC and would supervise construction, operation, maintenance and ownership of any monorail system.

Once the Plan was completed, I-53 provides that the City Council would be required to place the Plan before City voters at the next election, including a special election if requested by the ETC or the ETC’s chair.

I-53 also provides for the repeal of any ordinance that had repealed or amended the prior I-41 and that was inconsistent with I–53, and for reinstatement of that part of I-41 that had been repealed or amended.

 
 
 
 
SEEC Home Page