Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs 0.1% TBD increase to stabilize Shelton’s street fund; some members prefer a voter measure
Summary
Public works staff told the council Shelton needs roughly $2 million a year (largely via grants plus local match) to sustain pavement condition; staff presented three fiscal scenarios and recommended consideration of a 0.1% Transportation Benefit District sales tax. Councilors split on immediate councilmatic action versus referring a ballot measure to voters and asked staff to return with election timelines and draft ordinance language.
Shelton’s public‑works director, Jay Harris, told the City Council on Nov. 25 that the city’s street fund requires a reliable revenue stream to maintain pavement condition and avoid costly full reconstructions.
Harris showed the city’s pavement condition index (PCI) rose from about 69 to 72 in recent surveys but warned that without roughly $2 million per year in combined resources (local revenue plus grant matches) the PCI would decline to about 61 within six years. He said preventive maintenance on arterial and collector roads preserves pavement life and is far cheaper than full dig‑outs later.
Harris summarized three budget scenarios: maintain current revenue streams (baseline); add an extra 0.1 percentage point to the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) sales tax (the staff model shows this stabilizes the street fund through the planning horizon); or remove the TBD increment and reduce transfers from REET and the general fund (which would create earlier shortfalls). He told councilors the street fund is sensitive to TBD revenue and that delaying a decision could cost roughly $30,000 in lost monthly revenue, a figure mentioned by a council member during debate.
“Streets are the largest asset of the city,” Jay Harris said, framing the trade‑offs between raising revenue and reducing operations such as roadside mowing, sidewalk repairs, winter operations and striping. He described likely service reductions if additional revenue is not found: reduced mowing and vegetation spraying, fewer preventive crack seals, delayed overlays and possible outsourcing of some maintenance functions.
Council reaction split along timing and equity lines. Several councilors said the TBD increase should go to voters rather than be adopted councilmatically, given recent tax changes that have affected residents. Others argued the city should move quickly to secure the revenue to avoid service degradation. One council member urged staff to prepare materials for an August ballot deadline; another suggested February or a special election would require different timing and deadlines with the county auditor and Department of Revenue.
Action taken: Council asked staff to research election timelines, notification deadlines (the presentation noted Department of Revenue only begins collections on Jan. 1, Apr. 1 or July 1 and requires roughly 75 days’ notice), and to draft ordinance language so council could decide whether to place a 0.1% TBD increase before voters. Harris and staff also outlined alternatives if the city does not obtain the TBD increment, including prioritization changes and more aggressive grant seeking.
Next steps: Staff will return with detailed election calendar options and a draft ordinance and will include updated revenue projections so the council can decide whether to send a TBD increase to the ballot or to delay and accept service reductions.
