Since today may be the last chance to provide input on the Transportation aspects of the Budget, I’m putting together my questions and requests in one place, and here’s the announcement that the city sent out yesterday. Please come and speak if any of this resonates with you!
Transportation Budget Presentation at the Regular City Council meeting on Oct. 6 at 6 p.m.
The City Council will discuss the transportation budget at their meeting tomorrow evening when the Transportation Department will present three potential budget scenarios that fund projects across the department’s five program areas:
- Major Projects
- Pedestrian & Bicycle Mobility
- Vehicle Mobility
- Neighborhood Mobility
- Preservation & Reconstruction
Two of the scenarios reflect potential revenues from the city’s transportation benefit district, which could support essential infrastructure needed for Bellevue’s continued growth and livability.
The council established the district in 2023 and will consider whether, and at what level, to fund it as part of the 2027–28 budget process. The council will not be taking action on the benefit district tomorrow evening, but future action may include one or both of the following:
- Increasing the city sales tax rate by 0.1%
- Adding a $20 fee for all vehicles registered in Bellevue
The budget office estimates the sales tax increase would result in an annual spending increase of about $57 for Bellevue households. If both the sales tax increase and vehicle registration fee are approved, the estimated annual increase would be $77 for households with one vehicle.
Community members are encouraged to tune into the council meeting to see how these investments support Bellevue’s long‑term growth and mobility goals.
My Requests:
Provide clarity on whether we can afford the Grand Connection, and where the money to fund it is coming from (more below).
Clarify that there’s not an intent to hollow out the NE 12th Tree Walk between Bellevue Way and 106th, according to a budgeted item in the Transportation Scenarios memo (12th item in the bike/ped list is “NE 12th, 100th to 108th Ave NE Multipurpose Path Completion”) has $1.25M allocated for design).
State openness to funding a pedestrian-bike route instead of a vehicular roadway where Spring Blvd would go through the new BelRed park. While I think this is something that really needs to work through the process at a lower level (e.g., by Transportation staff reviewing the BelRed Look Forward street grid layout map forwarded by the Planning Commission to Council, updating road usage estimates to reflect the deleted street segments, and then having a discussion about the anticipated usage), it would be nice to know that this vote won’t indicate that Council is specifically endorsing the plan to add car lanes here. I still think there are some unanswered questions from my post here, and the Urbanist article here is a pretty good summary of the situation (I haven’t provided an update on this recently). While I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable to say there’s a difference of 2-3 minutes in vehicle travel time given that there is traffic congestion at some times, I strongly agree that changing the plan to a path would be much better for cyclists and people walking.
Fund collection of safety data related to micromobility. We were told there would be safety data collected with the Lime rollout, but the Ride Report data doesn’t seem to cover any conflicts with pedestrians, and it’s unclear what data is being reported through Lime. We should also be tracking injuries seen by nearby hospitals.
Add more funding for the connection from Main Street to Eastrail, which is only given $2M for completion under Scenarios 2 and 3. Especially once the Trestle is completed, and with the new bike infrastructure along Main St, this is a high value project. It seems to be similar in scale to the cost of connecting 12th and Eastrail, though I don’t think the details have been figured out. Is this low allocation due to expected state and federal grants, and how much of the project at NE 12th is being covered by grants?
Page 15 of the Memory Bank only has $20k for municipal EV charging, which seems too small and would imply that the new chargers for the BSC, Fire Station 1, and City Hall will all be installed by the end of 2026.
On page 11 of the Memory Bank, you see that the “Towing and destruction of seized RVs” had a $150k request, but is being given no funding at all – we should fund this and to have a course of action planned in advance, since there have already been reports of RVs being parked poorly enough to obstruct the ROW.
Grand Connection:
I am concerned that the Community Engagement Summary creates the appearance of consensus because it does not reflect any of the community concerns about the affordability of the Grand Connection crossing that Council has been hearing. As you will see from the questions below, I don’t think we’ve established that we have the money for it, and the vibes around 10% underspend and the former proposal for interest-only bond repayments don’t give me warm fuzzy feelings. I still hope we can get answers on some of the assumptions before the budget is finalized, but people keep saying that more info explaining it is right around the corner, and we’ve had weeks go by with no added clarity. It is especially challenging to track what should be happening with the new GC/CM funding model. I cannot endorse this project without knowing that we have a plan to pay for it and that the money allocated for it will not deplete our ability to respond to other critical needs.
Page 3 of the Transportation Scenarios memo provided for September 15th indicates that only 11.5% of the TBD tax money ($1.26M per year) would go to Grand Connection, which could undermine the funding picture for the Grand Connection as I understand it. From the Final Project Analysis for the GCC, I quote page 81: “The Bellevue City Council approved a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) in 2023. The city’s current plan is to activate this previously approved TBD to fund approximately 40 percent (approximately $141.4 million) of the Grand Connection Crossing total cost (principal and interest associated with debt issuance).” There was already a suggestion that the GCC might take about $100M in city funds in addition to the TBD and TIF funds and assuming perhaps $30M in philanthropic funding. Reducing the TBD contribution by $110M seems like it would be a problem. (Page 2 of Attachment E on Sustainability says we have “Invested $44.2 million to advance design work for the Grand Connection Crossing,” which is more than I had realized)
How wide will the Grand Connection be? There was discussion of narrowing it to 30’ wide to save money.
Is it true that the $13.2M that the TIF Property Tax would contribute in this tally has already been reduced by the amount of bond interest that will need to be paid, and how much is assumed for interest payments and what is the current estimate of TIF collections over 25 years? Please provide the calculation.
The FInal Project Assessment mentioned a potential $121M additional capacity (page 81) in the TBD to capture more revenue. Is this still our estimate, and how was it derived? I only see the potential for $52M over 20 years, if the car tabs go to $50.
There was a previous mention of an underspend assumption of 10% in the GCX Cashflow document from the 9/22 meeting, which knocked down the amount of money we needed to find under the cushions by $26.5M (via wishful thinking?). It does not appear here, but I wonder if it is still being credited as a source of funds in one of these categories. The Memory Bank document (question 31) shows that Naren Briar asked about this, and the answer was that it was a cash flow thing due to lagging invoices, etc., but that answer implied that it was still believed to be a correct approach and that the finance team stood behind it (so I don’t assume it’s really disappeared). Also, I don’t see how this response to her question can be correct, since the Cashflow table listed the Total Expenditures at $238.9M after the 10% reduction.
During the Budget Info Session on Sept 30th, there was more than one mention that the TBD could possibly return $10M to the “General Fund,” but John Resa described it as a one-time transfer, not each year (intriguing, what would the mechanism for a one-time exception be?).
There is a bullet point at the bottom of page 3 of this week’s agenda memo that talks about $50M coming back to the General Fund from the TIF over 25 years (after covering crossing maintenance costs, which I do not see an estimate for, and debt service). I believe the estimate for the TIF revenue is still $84.4M, and debt service might be $40M, so this does not math using the numbers I have. Can we have this calculation shown?
What amount of reserves are being used for the GCX budget, and which reserve accounts are they coming from?
Memory Bank: A question from Mo Malakoutian: “Is the private contribution and donation for the Grand Connection $24 million in the CIP?” Answer: When you look at the full 10-year period, it actually rolls up to about $41M, which we’ll talk more about on the 6th of October. But in the first six years, in the first couple of years of that, it’s a smaller amount.” Really? Are donors going to be excited about giving us money after it’s already been built?
Other areas where more clarity is needed:
The Memory Bank included this response to a question from Vishal Bhargava: “Portfolio‑level CIP allocations are based on revenue sourcing,” Would be great to have this explained in more detail as an FAQ answer on the Capital Program Areas page for Transportation.
The Sustainability Investments attachment mentions $31M for healthy streams, but it’s unclear if that’s coming from one of the Parks funds, part of Storm and Surface Water, etc., that have allocations in the Preliminary Financial Plan in Attachment B. Also, what does healthy streams mean in terms of actual programs?
How much of Bellevue’s revenue comes from SB 5814-related B&O taxes on services? I don’t think we can assume that the Millionaires’ Tax will be patched up to include the sales tax mitigation in a way that covers all of it.
Some other new transportation projects are highlighted in this week’s meeting materials:
Speed Safety Camera Program, ($11M (upfront investment?), 3.0 FTE) Seems unclear if it includes the first 14 cameras that are being deployed by the end of 2026 (seven locations, one camera facing each direction). There was also a significant investment in outreach previously, and some follow-up surveys are expected. It is not clear what the 3 FTE is for, and if the cost for those personnel is included in the $11M, since the cameras are provided by a contractor. After implementation is complete, it will be funded by revenues generated by the cameras. Not clear if revenues will also pay back the set-up costs. Not clear if this includes the feedback signs at the camera locations, which were budgeted at $1M in the Transportation Scenarios memo (with or without the TBD tax). I don’t see the cameras themselves in the scenarios. There is also a one-time funding line item for the cameras for $6k on page 13 of the Memory Bank. The contract with Verra Mobility was in the consent calendar for 7/21/26: $7.5M in Phase 1 and $3.7M in Phase 2 (which would start in 2028).
Implementation of Parking and Curb Management: There is not always enough information to know what is included in a project. For instance, the “Parking and Curb Management Implementation is $6.1M (Page 7 of Transportation Scenarios) for 10 years, but the Curb Pricing Implementation Strategy doc from the end of 2025 said that the upfront costs would be $1.6M (page 35 of 158). I assumed that implementation would not include the operational costs, which were expected to be $2M/year. The Sustainability Investments attachment also mentioned $3.3 million in “micromobility and curb management” in the 2027-2028 budget. I received clarification that adding up the “expenditures” and “personnel” values for 2027 and 2028, produces a total of $3.28M. Page 15 of the Memory Bank doc says the actual amount is $3,044,902 (not sure if the FTE is included in that). I appreciate receiving the clarification that this $6.1M assumes $1.6M in the first year for implementation of paid on-street parking and $500k the remaining nine years to advance the 28 “practices” identified in the Curb Management Plan. I would have otherwise expected the “implementation” to be completed by 2028 (though I do know implementation was going to happen first in areas where parking is at more of a premium). It feels like Council is being asked to endorse unspecified programs through this budget, since the scope of what we actually get for each item is not obvious. Curb pricing will not be city-wide, just Downtown, BelRed and Wilburton.
Shared Micromobility ($210,000, 0.5 FTE) “staffing and operating costs,” not listed on the Transportation Scenarios memo. There is also a note in page 11 of the Memory Bank that says 75% of a $14,000 request for Shared Micro-mobility was funded in the 2027-2028 budget, and Page 15 lists $30k for shared micro-mobility.
BellHop, $300,000 – [duration not specified], though the Transportation Scenarios memo listed this as Interim Support and it will only be funded if both the sales tax and car tabs tax are approved.
At the Sept 30 info session, John Resa said that the $5M allocated for KidsQuest is already included in the $9.5M that Council approved on 5/5/26, and that it’s not a new funding amount. I’d noted at the time that the first installment was $4.5M, with funds to be triggered at $2.5M for substantial completion of improvements/maintenance, and the final $2.5M at occupancy in about 2028, so this makes sense. It is likely many/most other items listed in this budget would similarly tie back to a previous decision, but I haven’t figured out if there’s a reference that lets you trace them back yet. Is there a list of items that are being newly authorized, other than the items above?
The Memory Bank has a lot of non-answers. Although it is dated 9/22, it does not have all the answers that should have been available by 9/22, and it would be useful to see the answers in this list, even if they were also provided verbally during a meeting.
On page 13 of the Memory Bank, it is interesting that the Expanded Utility Bill Assistance Program ($5.2M) and Affordable Housing Permit Expenses ($1.05M) are listed as one-time expenses; I would have said we are very likely to continue these in the future.
Side Note: It is interesting to compare with the 2024 budget Memory Bank, which is here, and the Capital Projects Dashboard (updated quarterly, here).
A likely error is in the G-NEWFAM item, which is listed as $500k on page 13 and $50k on page 15 of the Memory Bank.
Likely error: Memory Bank Page 15 lists $155M for Pedestrian and Bike Mobility in 2027-2032, but the Transportation Scenarios memo puts 82.8M-118M for that category in 2027-2036, depending on the TBD tax decision, plus a separate Preservation item for $24M that includes major intersection work; all together it still doesn’t add up to $155M.
Not necessarily an error: Neighborhood Mobility is $38M-$55M depending on the scenario, but the Memory Bank groups Neighborhood Mobility with Safety at $30M (possibly not a discrepancy since the Scenarios time frame is longer by four years, but still annoying for someone who is trying to make sure things match up).
Leave a Reply