Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Thurston County transportation benefit district: commissioners review options to assume powers, funding choices and projects
Summary
County staff briefed commissioners on an option to fold the Transportation Benefit District into the Board of County Commissioners, timelines and costs for an advisory vote, council‑ and voter‑funding options, and a two‑year project list that could be funded by TBD revenues.
Thurston County commissioners received an extended briefing on the Transportation Benefit District (TBD), including an option for the board to assume TBD powers, eligibility questions for board members, projected road fund pressures, timelines and costs for an advisory ballot measure, sample funding options, and a prioritized list of projects that TBD revenue could help fund.
Staff said RCW 36.74 permits a county’s board of commissioners to assume the TBD’s rights, powers, functions and obligations; doing so would dissolve the TBD as a separate legal entity and allow the county’s prosecuting attorney’s office to advise the TBD. Staff noted that most cities and many TBDs adopt the “assume powers” approach and that Jefferson County recently used that structure when it funded its TBD.
Commissioners discussed whether to fold the TBD into the board now or wait until there is a decision to fund it. Some commissioners expressed concern about adding administrative cost pressure to a road fund that staff projects is declining in fund balance; others said assuming powers would be more efficient and would allow county legal staff to advise TBD matters.
Staff presented possible council‑created funding options (examples: a $20 vehicle fee or a 0.1% sales and use tax) that staff estimated could each generate about $1.5 million annually. Voter‑approved options included a $50 car tab fee or a 0.2%–0.3% sales and use tax; staff estimated those voter‑approved options could generate roughly $3.0 million per year.
The briefing included a sample two‑year funding scenario for FY2027–2028 showing how different funding options could fund a slate of projects. Staff highlighted five prioritized projects: a roundabout at Yelm Highway and Spurgeon Creek; a full rebuild of the corridor on 180 Third Avenue (SR 12 to Empire) that would add shoulders; and three pavement preservation overlay projects (6 miles on Summit Lakeshore Road; 2 miles on 140 Eighth Avenue between Algiers and Martinson; and 2.5 miles on 140 Third Avenue between Tilly Road and McDuff Road). Staff said local funds are often leveraged by state and federal grants and that $1 of local investment can generate approximately $7 of additional state or federal funding, according to their estimate.
Staff also provided draft advisory vote language and an estimate of the cost to place such a question on the ballot: roughly $200,000 if placed on the August primary (deadline for auditor submission May 2) and roughly $100,000 if placed on the November general election (deadline August 5). Staff cautioned that costs may be shared if other jurisdictions place measures on the same ballot, which could reduce the county’s share.
No board action was taken; staff suggested the commissioners schedule a planning session to map long‑range revenue options and then determine whether and when to place TBD matters on a future agenda. Staff said that if the board decides to move forward, subsequent steps would include a public hearing and code amendments as required by statute.
