Bothell council hears options for renewing transportation funding; staff to explore voter-approved levy

City of Bothell public‑works staff presented a transportation funding study session on Feb. 11 that laid out a proposed funding package intended to sustain maintenance and safety operations, accelerate pavement preservation and support multimodal capital projects. Staff asked two policy questions: whether the scope aligned with community feedback and whether the council supported continued research into a voter‑approved levy.

Public Works Director Erin Lenhart and colleagues told the council the staff‑developed proposal responds to community survey results and the Imagine Bothell Comprehensive Plan by prioritizing maintenance and safety while also funding sidewalks, bike lanes and larger multimodal projects. The presentation estimated a citywide need of roughly $10.3 million per year and a target package that would yield about $15 million annually in total resources if pursued through a combination of sources.

Why it matters: staff said a substantial gap exists because past state and local revenue sources for transportation have declined; those trends left Bothell dependent on one‑time sources and grants that do not reliably fund ongoing maintenance. “We were looking at primarily at these various documents and conversations and the community engagement associated with them,” Lenhart said, summarizing the basis for the proposed scope.

Council discussion focused on two themes. First, several councilmembers — including Kurt, Aldrichs and Deputy Mayor Alcabara — emphasized the community’s frequent requests for sidewalks and smaller safety projects that do not compete well for large grants. They asked staff to consider shifting local levy dollars toward programs that are hard to fund externally. Staff replied that larger multimodal projects often include sidewalks and protected bike lanes as part of construction and that those projects also tend to be more competitive for grant match; staff agreed to model funding scenarios that allocate a higher share to smaller sidewalk and safety needs.

Second, councilmembers raised broader revenue‑system concerns. A number of members asked staff to pursue parallel legislative and regional advocacy — for example on state caps, gas‑tax erosion and other revenue mechanisms — alongside any levy planning, so the city is not repeatedly asking voters for temporary revenue. Several members expressed support for asking voters to renew or replace the expiring Safe Streets levy, and the council provided direction for staff to continue analysis.

Ending: staff will return with refined scenarios and a recommended public‑engagement plan; council asked that staff model options that increase locally funded sidewalk and safety work while also showing how local funds would be used as grant matches on larger multimodal projects.