HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 03 Street System Communication Update and Revenue Options AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/9/2014
Meeting Type: Work Session Staff Contact/Dept.: Anette Spickard, DPW
Brian Conlon, DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3617 Estimated Time: 45 minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
ITEM TITLE: STREET SYSTEM COMMUNICATION UPDATE AND REVENUE OPTIONS
ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends Council direction to 1) investigate implementation of the
Transportation System Maintenance Fee 2) to identify $100,000 for slurry seal
projects to be completed in the next construction season 3) explore a future ballot
measure to increase the Local Fuel Tax, and 4) develop a proposal for a bond
measure for the November 2017 election.
ISSUE STATEMENT: The City of Springfield shares the same struggle that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and numerous Oregon counties and cities face regarding adequate
funding for transportation system needs. The City of Springfield continues to look for
appropriate and sufficient revenues to support desired levels of transportation system operations, maintenance and preservation. Staff estimates a $4.5 million annual unfunded
need to effectively support the City’s transportation system operations and preservation
objectives, in addition to an approximate $25 million backlog of more comprehensive street rehabilitation projects. At the October 28, 2013 Council Work Session, staff was asked to
explore in more detail potential revenue options that can inform the next step of polling
citizens on a preferred approach to begin addressing the funding gap problem.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memorandum 2. Street Preservation and Rehabilitation Backlog list
3. Revenue Options Matrix 4. League of Oregon Cities Summary of Street Funding Methods 5. League of Oregon Cities 2014 Transportation User Fee Survey
6. League of Oregon Cities white paper on street preservation
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT:
At Council’s direction from the October 2013 work session, staff has researched potential Street Fund revenue options to address the $25 Million rehabilitation backlog and the
annual $4.5 Million operations and preservation unmet need (see Attachment 2). Our
research shows that Springfield is not alone in dealing with street system funding challenges. According to information provided by the League of Oregon Cities there are 23
cities that have implemented a Local Fuel Tax and 34 cities that have implemented a Transportation User Fee. Springfield is primarily reliant on State and Local Fuel Tax for our Street Fund but both State and Local Fuel Tax revenues have remained relatively flat,
continuing a trend that began in mid-FY08.
The majority of feedback and suggestions staff received during presentations of the Street System Communication Plan to numerous community and civic groups centered around two
potential revenue approaches: debt financing, such as voter approved general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, or municipal loans; and “pay as you go” methods, such as increasing local fuel taxes and/or implementation of a transportation system maintenance fee. The
goal of any approach is to match system operations, preservation, and rehabilitation objectives with the appropriate revenue source and amount. In the briefing memorandum
staff provides for your discussion potential strategies for the short, medium and long term
that Council may consider as reasonable solutions to address the street preservation and rehabilitation needs of our community.
Council discussion of these strategies and revenue options will inform staff of the next steps
and preferred options.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: June 9, 2014
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
To: Gino Grimaldi, City Manager
From: Len Goodwin, DPW Director
Anette Spickard, Deputy DPW Director
Brian Conlon, OPS Division Manager
Rhonda Rice, Senior Management Analyst
Subject: Street System Communication Plan Update And Revenue Options
ISSUE:
The City of Springfield shares the same struggle that the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) and numerous Oregon counties and cities face regarding adequate funding for transportation system needs. The City of Springfield continues to look for appropriate and
sufficient revenues to support desired levels of transportation system operations, maintenance
and preservation. Staff estimates a $4.5 million annual unfunded need to effectively support the
City’s transportation system operations and preservation objectives, in addition to an
approximate $25 million backlog of more comprehensive street rehabilitation projects. At the October 28, 2013 Council Work Session, staff was asked to explore in more detail potential
revenue options that can inform the next step of polling citizens on a preferred approach to
begin addressing the funding gap problem.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
BACKGROUND:
Springfield relies on State and Local Fuel Taxes which currently generate approximately $4.2
million annually as the primary source of funding for street system operations and capital preservation spending. Street system programs include traffic maintenance, transportation engineering, street landscape, and general street maintenance. Capital activities include Capital
Improvement Program planning, project engineering, design, construction, and financing.
Although the State Legislature implemented an additional six cent per gallon tax increase in
2009 and Springfield imposed a three cent per gallon fuel tax in 2003, the cumulative revenue no longer keeps pace with the multi-faceted operational and maintenance needs of the street system. When Council reviewed this issue in 2003 staff reported an annual funding shortfall of
about $1.5 million, and by 2009 the gap had grown to about $2.6 million. Lane County
continues to experience their own road funding struggles and over the period from 2003 to 2008
discontinued compensating the City $1 million annually toward maintaining a select list of Lane County arterial and collector roads within the City limits.
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 6
1
City staff now estimates the street overlay and preservation funding gap has reached $3.0
Million annually because the street system infrastructure is getting older and spending on
preservation continues to lag. Additional pressures have been placed on the fund for sidewalk
upgrades to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, City bridge maintenance and
preservation responsibilities, street lighting repair and upgrades, and wire theft replacement for an estimated unmet need of $1.5 Million.
The condition of the City’s street system has declined from 2007 Service Condition Index (SCI)
rating of 77% to a 2014 SCI below 50%. How did this happen? Prior to 2007 the City was on a
seven year cycle for slurry seal of residential streets and a ten to twelve year cycle for overlays
of arterials and collectors. Since 2007 the City has not been able to afford any of these preservation activities, except on arterials and collectors where federal funds have been
available. Over this seven year period the condition of the City’s street system, once rated at
fair-good, has slipped to a rating of fair-poor. The street system decline continues to steepen
considerably year to year, and without adequate funding we are destined to operate and preserve
it at less than minimal levels. The City can only afford to do crack sealing, pothole patching and street sweeping. In essence, the consequence of deferring preservation is a continued increase in
future rehabilitation costs as more streets fail and construction costs increase. Staff now
estimates that the preservation and rehabilitation backlog exceeds $25 million across the
system’s functional classifications of arterials, collectors and local residential streets.
The Council and City staff has consistently reviewed and discussed this funding issue dating back to the 2003 local gas tax implementation. Research on street maintenance programs has
consistently pointed to the benefit of preserving streets at a lower cost versus the higher cost of
rehabilitation due to deferred maintenance. However, the concept of proactive street
preservation was not well understood by the public. Recognizing that additional outreach and
education was needed, the City Council and staff reshaped our communication approach. Staff developed a Street System Communication Plan to deliver a three tiered message; the street
system is a valuable asset for the entire community, actively preserving the system is more cost
effective than rehabilitating at a later date, and revenues are no longer keeping pace with
preservation needs. The plan outlines a strategy to present consistent and simple messaging and
encourage an open dialogue with community members.
Staff worked with a local videographer to develop a short, informative video that focuses on the
many facets that comprise a multi-modal street system, and the importance of a well-maintained
street system. Over the last two years, a team of Development and Public Works staff has
presented the Street System Communication Plan initiatives with the video to several civic
organizations and business groups to reach out to a broader audience. Staff also set up City information booths to present the communication plan at the National Night Out event last July
and six (6) neighborhood parks in August, for which the Mayor and Council participated.
Additionally, the video has been displayed at the Springfield Mall kiosk, on the government
channel 29, the City’s Springboard Intranet and public-facing Internet. On the whole we found
that citizens see the benefits of doing timely preservation verses delaying surface treatments resulting in more costly rehabilitation later. Many people identified that Springfield had a long
history of maintaining its streets to a high standard, but have noticed substantial street
deterioration in recent years. Some common themes amongst audiences are that people want the
street system to be safe and dependable, and that all users should pay their fair share for system
upkeep.
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 6
DISCUSSION:
Street System Communication Plan Outcomes & Revenue Options Assessment
The majority of public feedback and suggestions centered around two potential revenue
generating approaches: debt financing, such as voter approved general obligation bonds,
revenue bonds, or municipal loans; or “pay as you go” methods, such as increasing local fuel taxes and/or implementation of a transportation system maintenance fee. The goal of any
approach is to match system operations, preservation, and rehabilitation objectives with the
appropriate revenue source and amount. Another unconventional idea mentioned by the public
is to impose large fleet vehicles fees on Lane Transit District and the commercial trucking
industry and dedicate that revenue explicitly to maintain arterial and collector streets.
At Council’s direction from the October 2013 work session, staff has researched potential Street
Fund revenue options to address the $25 Million rehabilitation backlog and the annual $4.5
Million operations and preservation unmet need. (See Attachment 2). Our research shows that
Springfield is not alone in dealing with street system funding challenges. According to
information provided by the League of the Oregon Cities there are 23 cities that have implemented a Local Fuel Tax and 34 cities that have implemented a Transportation User Fee.
Springfield is primarily reliant on State and Local Fuel Tax for our Street Fund but both State
and Local Fuel Tax revenues have remained relatively flat, continuing a trend that began in
mid-FY08.
Staff provides the following discussion of revenue options using debt financing and pay-as-you-go methods to inform further discussion about potential revenue sources and/or combinations of
options. A matrix summarizing the different options is included as Attachment 3.
Debt Financing Options
General Obligation Bonds: Asking voters to authorize the use of General Obligation Bonds
(GO) for construction projects is a common way for municipalities to generate the funds necessary to build sizable systems improvements. The City levies a property tax in an amount
necessary to pay the principal and interest for the bond. As such, state law limits the use of GO
Bond proceeds to capital projects. The bond proceeds cannot be used for ongoing maintenance
or repair, although the funds would be available for capital preservation spending. GO Bonds
could be used to address all or a portion of the estimated $25 Million street system preservation and rehabilitation backlog. GO Bonds can be sold in phases to time the sale of bonds with the
pacing of projects to minimize the interest expense. For instance, if voters authorized a $25
Million GO Bond, a portion such as $10 Million could be used to provide immediate working
capital to fund ready-to-go projects. The remainder could be sold at a later time to coincide with
future projects. GO bonds are typically structured for long term debt service that can be spread over 10-20 years. There is however a stipulation that length of loan payback cannot exceed the
useful life of the asset, which is intended to keep communities from paying taxes for a longer
period of time than the new asset will last. If Council were to refer a GO Bond to the ballot it
would be important to include a list of the projects that would be funded by the bond proceeds.
Revenue Bonds: Similar to GO Bonds, Revenue Bonds are a long term debt instrument that can provide capital funds at relatively low interest and debt repayment can also be spread over
20 years plus. Revenue Bonds are backed by the City’s pledge to use a dedicated non-property
tax revenue stream to pay the principal and interest over the life of the bond. The City must
identify a revenue source to assure payment. The Revenue Bond’s repayment schedule can be
as long as a GO Bond therefore issues must be structured carefully to assure that payments do
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 6
not extend beyond the lifecycle of the preservation or rehabilitation treatment. Revenue Bonds
do not have the same statutory restriction for use of funds like GO Bonds, but they are typically
recommended only for one time capital expenditures and not for ongoing operational needs.
Municipal Loan: Municipal Loans are bank loans that are typically easier for fiscally sound
municipalities to obtain. Municipal Loans do not require voter approval but they do have higher interest rates for repayment than bonds and the loan term is generally shorter. Municipal Loans also require a pledge of a revenue stream for repayment and are typically recommended only
for one time capital expenditures that can be repaid in a short time and not for ongoing
operational needs.
Pay-As-You-Go Options
The concept of pay-as-you-go is to use an ongoing revenue stream to match an ongoing
program funding need. There is also a benefit to the community by not incurring loan interest
for the use of the funds. In our conversations with citizens we have found that most people
agree fundamentally with the concept of pay-as-you-go, albeit some do find it difficult to
embrace the idea of higher taxes or fees.
Local Fuel Tax: The Springfield City Council imposed a three-cent (3¢) per gallon Local Fuel
Tax in 2003. The 3¢ Local Fuel Tax has consistently generated about $1 million annual revenue
to the Street Fund. Collection of Local Fuel Tax is managed and distributed back to the City by
the State. The revenue was initially dedicated to system preservation until 2007 when loss of
county road funds and flattening of fuel tax trends reached a point where the budget was reduced to support basic street operations programs. The City’s preservation program has been
on hiatus since this time. Although the public and corporations sometimes lobby against Local
Fuel Taxes, many view it as a “fair” tax because it taxes almost all street system users, with
exception of a few alternative fuel vehicles, and captures taxes from pass-through visitors
instead of placing the full burden of street funding on Springfield residents. Industry forecasters have declared taxes on vehicle sales and fuel consumption can be expected to remain flat or
decrease as vehicles become more fuel efficient and last longer. The Oregon legislature has
recently enacted a law that Cities and Counties must take Fuel Tax increases to the voters for
approval. The City Council previously referred a ballot initiative to voters in 2009 to increase
the City’s Local Fuel Tax by 2¢ to 5¢ per gallon which ultimately did not pass. However, the timing of the 2009 tax measure coincided with the recent economic recession. Economic
indicators today point to an improved local economy and reconsideration of this option is
reasonable.
Transportation System Maintenance Fee: Transportation System Maintenance Fees are
becoming more commonly used across the country. TSMFs have generated increased interest across Oregon as past economic conditions have called into question the sustainability of
current transportation funding sources for local governments. The League of Oregon Cities now
reports there are 34 cities that have established TSMFs in some form or another. There are
variables in the assessment methodology but the most commonly accepted practice is to bill
properties through their monthly utility bill fees in proportion to their network use, e.g. using ITE trip rate data to reflect vehicle trips generated for residential and non-residential use.
Commonly, all residences are billed at a single rate. The current Oregon average TSMF for a
single family residence is $5.00 per month; the lowest is $1.33 per month (North Plains) and the
highest is $11.56 per month (Oregon City). Florence is the only city in Lane County with a
TSMF at $5.00 per month. (See Attachment 4).
Attachment 1
Page 4 of 6
Vehicle Registration Fee: Lane County has the authority to enact a local vehicle registration
fee and if they were to do so the City would automatically receive a share of that fee. The state
requires a minimum of 40% of the fee to be shared with cities. For example, if the county were
to enact a $43 registration fee the estimated minimum revenue to Springfield would be $2.0
Million. Lane County Commissioners have discussed this fee from time to time but have not brought it forward for action. In most cases, Commissioners have expressed intent to refer any
such fee to the voters.
Local Option Levy: Local Option levies are property tax levies that are approved by voters and
used for either operational needs or capital purchases. Depending on the use of funds they are
limited to either five years or ten years. The City currently has two voter approved Local Option levies for Police and Fire services. Local Option levies are subject to Measure 5 tax
limitations. Proceeds from Local Option levies provide a steady stream of revenue over time
and therefore have more commonly been used by tax districts for operational needs instead of
capital purchases.
In summary, a principal distinction between the pay-as-you-go and debt approaches is that the debt approach offers a source of immediate funds, at the price of interest payments, while the
pay as you go approach requires no payments of interest but also takes longer to build up
adequate funds to start projects.
Next Steps
The Street System Communication Plan has been successful in increasing awareness among citizens about the street system operations and preservation requirements. Moreover, the presentations have been effective in engaging citizens in the problem. Now that some members
of the Springfield community are actively engaged in a conversation about the City’s street
system it is important to maintain that link. It is also timely to consider an exploration of the
ideas that the citizens have suggested to address the funding problem, as well as other opportunities that either Council or staff might consider reasonable solutions. Council discussion of these options will inform staff of the next steps to take in our community
conversations.
There are two approaches that Council might consider. If Council is comfortable that an
appropriate level of public understanding has been achieved, and that it is timely to begin studying, in greater detail, the issues, opportunities and challenges in implementing a solution, Council could direct staff to explore strategies such as those listed below.
Example of strategies using some of the above revenue options for discussion purposes
Strategy 1: Design a set of funding solutions to start the City back on a path of regular
preservation and overlay cycles to prevent rehabilitation backlog from growing and to improve neighborhood quality, safety and accessibility.
A first step to executing Strategy 1 could be establishing a Transportation System Maintenance
Fee. Assuming a potential ordinance adoption date of July 2015, staff would begin work now
on rate structure design, stakeholder input and education, establishing a billing and collection
method, developing an annual street repair citizen report, and possibly a council-appointed oversight committee to ensure transparency and accountability of the use of the fees for preservation projects. Staff would report back to Council over the next year as each of the
components is developed in preparation for eventual adoption of an ordinance. If the Council
chose a range between $5 to $8 monthly fee for Single Family household and a corresponding
equitable collection rate for the Industrial/Commercial, the fee could collect $3M to 5M per
Attachment 1
Page 5 of 6
year. If in the future any additional street preservation funds come available from the county,
state or federal governments Council could adjust the Transportation System Maintenance Fee.
A second step to execute Strategy 1 will be for the City to use the Performance Based
Budgeting Tool to identify $100,000 of slurry seal projects (see page 4 of Attachment 2) to be
completed while the City investigates the implementation of the Transportation System Maintenance Fee.
A third step to execute Strategy 1 could be to prepare a ballot measure for an increase in the
Local Fuel Tax by two cents per gallon, which could collect $650,000 per year. This will
equalize the rate to Eugene’s and collects revenue from all fuel purchasers driving through our
area.
Strategy 2: Design a funding solution to eliminate or begin reduction of the $25 Million
rehabilitation backlog.
The Council could consider placing a General Obligation Bond on the November 2017 ballot to
raise funds to address all or part of the $25 Million street rehabilitation backlog. The City staff
could in the meantime evaluate all of the City’s capital needs and recommend a list of projects and a bond amount that would be supported by the voters. Staff could present Council a bond
proposal in early 2017.
Strategy 3: Council can continue to monitor the situation and rely on the federal, state, and/or
county governments to provide additional revenues for street preservation and rehabilitation. It
is unknown at this time when additional funds from any of these sources will materialize.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends Council direction to 1) investigate implementation of the Transportation System Maintenance Fee 2) to identify $100,000 for
slurry seal projects to be completed in the next construction season 3)
explore a future ballot measure to increase the Local Fuel Tax, and 4)
develop a proposal for a bond measure for the November 2017 election.
Attachment 1
Page 6 of 6
City of Springfield Street Preservation Backlog
55
number of streets
needing slurry seal
1.3M
estimated backlog in
local street overal
25M
estimated backlog in
minor arterial/collector street overal
350K
estimated backlog in
slurry seal
28
number of local
streets needing
overal
36
number of minor arterial/collector
streets needing overal
27.2M
estimated backlog in
preservation city-wide
2008
stopped the
preservation cycle
10-12
average preservation
cycle for minor arterial/
collector streets
7-10
average preservation
cycle for local streets
Attachment 2
Page 1
Highest Priority Streets
Minor Arterial/Collector Overlay
LocationFrom To Sq.yds.cost
MohawkBlvd.OverpassMarcolaRd.2,357$117,850
42ndSt.MainSt.42ndSt.UAC 16,124$578,000
MarcolaRd.42ndSt.CityLimits 13,133$521,000
HarlowRd.GatewayBlvd.WestCityLimits6,425$237,745
28thSt.MainSt.OlympicSt.20,725$1,020,000
MarcolaRd.19thSt.42ndSt.36,850$1,842,500
LauraSt.QSt.2133LauraSt.8,547$427,350
QSt.PioneerParkwayWest5thSt.8,751$358,000
S.5thSt.MainSt.S.BSt.1,764$88,200
GSt.21stSt.28thSt.6,603$396,000
19thSt.MarcolaRd.213019thSt.2,360$107,000
W.DSt.MillSt.AspenSt.14,665$902,000
ESt.MillSt.28thSt.42,330$2,116,500
ThurstonRd.58thSt.69thSt.26,265$1,313,250
DaisySt.S42ndSt.S.46thSt.9,000$450,000
DaisySt.S.48thSt.BobStraubParkway20,405$1,020,250
18thSt.JSt.MohawkBlvd.8,576$414,000
HighBanksRd.52ndSt.58thSt.17,434$871,700
58thSt.MainSt.ThurstonRd.12,687$634,350
MillStreetMainSt.CentennialBlvd.17,311$865,550
66thSt.MainSt.ThurstonRd.12,800$640,000
CommercialAve.21CommercialAve.42ndSt.2,480$100,000
S.2ndSt.S.ASt.CityLimits 7,663$383,150
7thSt.MainSt.CentennialBlvd.14,702$735,100
10thSt.MainSt.CentennialBlvd.15,265$763,250
36thST.MainSt.CommercialAve.9,263$463,150
52ndSt I105HighBanksRd.1,554$77,700
ASt.5thSt.10thSt.9,010$450,500
ShellySt.LauraSt.DonSt.12,977$648,850
GSt.5thSt.21stSt.25,348$1,267,400
S.MillSt.MainSt.S.ASt.583$29,150
QSt.5thSt.19thSt.29,815$1,490,750
14thSt.MainSt.GSt.10,199$509,950
CentennialBlvd.IͲ5Overpass 5thSt.50,202$2,510,100
CentennialBlvd.5thSt.MohawkBlvd.19,249$962,450
GatewaySt.InternationalWy.IͲ5Underpass 5,000$250,000
Total $25,562,745
FundedbySTPͲUdollars
GatewaySt.HarlowRd.BeltlineRd.28,162 $1,364,000
E.17thAve.GlenwoodBlvd.HendersonAve.3,465$189,000
TotalBacklog
MinorArterial/CollectorOverlays $25,562,745
LocalStreetsOverlay $1,299,083
LocalStreetsSlurry(HighestPriority)$350,350
27,212,178.00$
Attachment 2
Page 2
Highest Priority Streets
Local Streets Overlay
Street FromToSq.yds.
LindaleDR LauraPheasantBLVD 2,810.00
2ndST TST UST 1,749.11
NCloverleaf 0952N.Cloverleaf OakdaleAve 2,788.00
Dornoch DornochST LochavenAve 604.44
ShadyLaneDR TST UST 1,780.00
ShadyLaneDR USTVST 666.67
PostalWay GatewayST GatewayLP 3,469.78
GatewayLP #PostalWay 2,764.44
GatewayLP PostalWay GatewayST 5,444.44
Shelly Laura Don 11,877.00
Pheasant Lindale Harlow 2,312.00
FST 01stST PPKWYW 1,276.89
FST PPKWYW PPKWYE 1,156.00
GST MillST 01st ST 1,750.00
01stST 01ST FST 571.67
01stST FSTGST 1,267.78
S14thST SAST SBST 554.67
23rdST GST DubenLN 1,430.00
AST 21stST 22nd ST 1,344.00
AST 22ndST23rd ST 1,423.33
IST Mohawk16th ST 1,866.67
S44thST MainST Aster 1,590.00
S44thST Aster S43rd PL 896.67
S44thST S43rdPL Camellia 1,066.67
S47thST Main AsterST 1,155.00
S49thPL 241Aster 247S49thPL 627.11
S49thPL 289S49thPL BluebelleWay 899.1162ndPL MainST AST 1,340.44
TotalSq.Yds.56,481.89
OverlayCosts $23.00
TotalCost $1,299,083
Since2008
Attachment 2
Page 3
Highest Priority Streets
Local (Residential) Slurry Seal
StreetNameFromStreetNameToStreetNameSqYrdsEstimatedCostFST PIONEERPARKWAYEAST04THST 1,314.675,206.08WNST WATERST LAURAST 1,239.114,906.88
LINDALEDRPHEASANTBLVDLINDALEDR 1,956.677,748.40
S68THPL MAINST ASTERST 1,065.334,218.72
BEVERLYSTHARLOWRD BEVERLYST 1,295.005,128.20KRUSEWAYHUTTONST GATEWAYST2,036.228,063.44WNST KELLYBLVD PRESCOTTLN2,070.228,198.08KELLYBLVDWHST WIST 1,418.675,617.92
03RDPL DEPUEST CUSTOMWAY 1,851.117,330.40
26THST AST CST 2,398.009,496.08
OAKDALEAVEGAMEFARMRD PHEASANTBLVD1,029.334,076.16PRESCOTTLNWCENTENNIALBLVDWMST 1,005.333,981.1212THST OLYMPICST PLEASANTST 789.333,125.76MARKETSTMST NST 1,171.114,637.60
MARKETSTPLEASANTST PIEDMONTST 959.563,799.84
MARKETSTPIEDMONTST QUINALTST 952.003,769.92
HAYDENBRIDGEPL07THST 08THST 957.333,791.04PRESCOTTLN PRESCOTTLN WCENTENNIALBLVD2,693.5610,666.4812THST MAINST AST 1,616.006,399.3622NDST AST DST 3,672.0014,541.12
49THST MAINST AST 1,295.785,131.28
66THST THURSTONRD JULESPL 922.673,653.76
08THST BST CST 1,220.224,832.0815THST QST SST 2,883.3311,418.0017THST OLYMPICST 17THST 2,426.679,609.60S72NDSTS72NDST S72NDST 910.443,605.36DAISYST S72NDST DAISYST 1,300.005,148.00
10THST QST FUCHSIAST 1,031.114,083.20
MARKETSTOLYMPICST PLEASANTST 963.333,814.80LST 13THST MARKETST 2,292.899,079.84LST 12THST 13THST 1,610.006,375.60HAYDENBRIDGEPL08THST HAYDENBRIDGEPL693.332,745.60GLACIERDR GLACIERDR S70THST 1,781.337,054.08
WKST MILLST WATERST 996.443,945.92
MARKETSTNST OLYMPICST 986.003,904.5607THST QST 07THST 1,945.56 7,704.40LAWNRIDGEAVEROSEBLOSSOMDRDEBRADR 963.333,814.80MARKETSTCENTENNIALBLVD LST 1,261.784,996.6401STPL JST 01STST 2,689.7810,651.52
06THST GST CENTENNIALBLVD5,474.0021,677.04
JANUSST HAMILTONST JANUSST 831.113,291.20WQUINALTSTWQUINALTST WQUINALTST636.672,521.2004THST GST DEPUEST 1,930.007,642.80S69THPL S69THPL S69THPL 696.672,758.80S72NDSTS72NDST S72NDST 906.673,590.40
S72NDSTS72NDST DAISYST 906.673,590.40
MST MARKETST CARTERLN 1,258.224,982.56
PRESCOTTLNWMST WNST 1,015.004,019.40HAMILTONSTJANUSST ISLANDST 3,392.7813,435.40JANUSST JANUSST JANUSST 576.002,280.9610THST FUCHSIAST RST 540.222,139.28
12THST LST MST 1,178.674,667.52
IST 12THST MOHAWKBLVD3,498.5613,854.28
PHEASANTBLVDHARLOWRD OAKDALEAVE4,606.3318,241.08ASTERST S70THPL S71STST 1,360.005,385.60Total350,349.56
Wouldliketodofirstifwehadthefunding
Attachment 2
Page 4
St
r
e
e
t
Sy
s
t
e
m
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Op
t
i
o
n
Ma
t
r
i
x
‐20
1
4
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Me
t
h
o
d
s
Au
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
By
Pa
i
d
By
Ca
n
Be
Us
e
d
Fo
r
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Me
t
h
o
d
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
Fe
e
/
R
a
t
e
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Am
o
u
n
t
Ra
i
s
e
d
Pros Cons Primary Stakeholder Groups
Pa
y
As
Yo
u
Go
Lo
c
a
l
Fu
e
l
Ta
x
El
e
c
t
i
o
n
Pe
o
p
l
e
wh
o
pu
r
c
h
a
s
e
ga
s
in
Sp
r
i
n
g
f
i
e
l
d
An
y
st
r
e
e
t
re
l
a
t
e
d
ex
p
e
n
s
e
pe
r
St
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
OD
O
T
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
3 ce
n
t
s
pe
r
ga
l
l
o
n
.
A 2 ce
n
t
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
wo
u
l
d
br
i
n
g
Sp
r
i
n
g
f
i
e
l
d
to
sa
m
e
ta
x
am
o
u
n
t
as
Eu
g
e
n
e
.
$6
5
0
,
0
0
0
Fe
e
is
related to use of
ro
a
d
s
,
captures pass
th
r
o
u
g
h
visitors, it is an
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
tax and has
re
l
i
a
b
l
e
collection. No
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
collection
ex
p
e
n
s
e
VMT is decreasing; recent trends show that this revenue source is flat and not expected to grow based on volume usage; instead revenue growth is based on rate changes. Springfield: Fueling and Trucking Companies; Hotel Owners; Springfield Chamber of Commerce
Co
u
n
t
y
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Re
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Fe
e
Co
u
n
t
y
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
an
d
/
o
r
El
e
c
t
i
o
n
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Ow
n
e
r
s
An
y
st
r
e
e
t
re
l
a
t
e
d
ex
p
e
n
s
e
pe
r
St
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
DM
V
$4
3
pe
r
re
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
$2
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
Fe
e
is
related to use of
ro
a
d
s
,
City receives an
au
t
o
m
a
t
i
c
share, No
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
collection
ex
p
e
n
s
e
This fee has not been established yet, requires action by County Vehicle owners
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
s
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Fe
e
(T
S
M
F
)
Ci
t
y
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
an
d
/
o
r
El
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sp
r
i
n
g
f
i
e
l
d
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
s
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
or
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
bi
l
l
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
SU
B
or
a
ne
w
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
op
e
r
a
t
e
d
by
Ci
t
y
$5
‐
$8
pe
r
mo
n
t
h
pe
r
si
n
g
l
e
fa
m
i
l
y
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
;
no
n
‐
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ra
t
e
ba
s
e
d
on
IT
E
tr
i
p
da
t
a
Up
to
$4
.
5
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
de
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
on
ra
t
e
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Fe
e
is
related to use of
ro
a
d
s
,
provides steady
re
v
e
n
u
e
stream. Could
be
us
e
d
to back revenue
bo
n
d
s
in the future.
Ci
t
i
e
s
across Oregon have
th
i
s
fe
e
in place already. Need amended IGA with SUB for billing and collection service or set up a collection system in City. Springfield Chamber of Commerce; Lane County Realtor Association; Springfield Trucking Companies; League of Women Voters
Lo
c
a
l
Op
t
i
o
n
Le
v
y
El
e
c
t
i
o
n
– no
do
u
b
l
e
ma
j
o
r
i
t
y
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
if
Ma
y
or
No
v
Sp
r
i
n
g
f
i
e
l
d
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
s
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
(5
ye
a
r
li
m
i
t
)
or
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
(1
0
ye
a
r
li
m
i
t
)
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
x
Bi
l
l
(s
u
b
j
e
c
t
to
Me
a
s
u
r
e
5 co
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
$1
.
0
0
/
$
1
,
0
0
0
as
s
e
s
s
e
d
va
l
u
e
$3
.
8
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
Fu
n
d
s
are available for
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
as taxes are paid
ea
c
h
November. No
co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
expense. City
ha
s
su
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
l
y
passed
LO
’
s
in
the past. Not a permanent solution, levy has to be renewed by voters. Will compete with other LO’s under Measure 5 tax limit. City has two LO’s in place already. Springfield Chamber of Commerce; Lane County Realtor Association; Springfield Trucking Companies; League of Women Voters
De
b
t
In
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
s
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Ob
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Bo
n
d
s
El
e
c
t
i
o
n
– no
do
u
b
l
e
ma
j
o
r
i
t
y
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
if
Ma
y
or
No
v
Sp
r
i
n
g
f
i
e
l
d
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ow
n
e
r
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
on
l
y
pe
r
St
a
t
e
Co
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
,
no
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
or
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
x
Bi
l
l
(n
o
t
su
b
j
e
c
t
to
co
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
64
ce
n
t
s
/
$
1
,
0
0
0
as
s
e
s
s
e
d
va
l
u
e
(b
a
s
e
d
on
co
l
l
e
c
t
i
n
g
$2
.
6
M
fr
o
m
20
1
3
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
va
l
u
e
s
)
$2
2
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
wi
t
h
de
b
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
of
$2
.
6
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
pe
r
ye
a
r
fo
r
10
ye
ar
s
Fu
n
d
s
are available for
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
as soon as bonds
ar
e
so
l
d
.
No collection
ex
p
e
n
s
e
.
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
financing
me
t
h
o
d
familiar to
ta
x
p
a
y
e
r
s
.
Constitution limits use of funds, cannot be used for operations. City may wish to issue GO Bonds for other capital needs beyond street repairs. Portion of proceeds goes to pay interest and bond issuance costs. Springfield Chamber of Commerce; Lane County Realtor Association; Springfield Trucking Companies; League of Women Voters
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Bo
n
d
s
/
S
t
a
t
e
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Ba
n
k
Lo
a
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Re
p
a
i
d
fr
o
m
a
de
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
re
v
e
n
u
e
st
r
e
a
m
su
c
h
as
TS
M
F
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
Bu
i
l
t
in
t
o
ra
t
e
of
th
e
de
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
re
v
e
n
u
e
st
r
e
a
m
Pr
o
r
a
t
e
d
sh
a
r
e
of
$5
‐
$8
TS
M
F
(a
p
p
r
o
x
.
$3
‐$5
)
$2
2
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
Wi
t
h
de
b
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
of
$2
.
7
M pe
r
ye
a
r
fo
r
10
ye
a
r
s
Fu
n
d
s
are available as
so
o
n
as bonds are sold. Requires TSMF rate to be adjusted to meet bond requirements, similar to stormwater and wastewater bonds. Cannot issue bonds until reserves have been built up in Street Fund. Rate payers
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
Lo
a
n
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Re
p
a
i
d
fr
o
m
a
de
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
re
v
e
n
u
e
st
r
e
a
m
su
c
h
as
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
ga
s
ta
x
or
TS
M
F
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
or
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
Bu
i
l
t
in
t
o
ra
t
e
of
th
e
de
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
re
v
e
n
u
e
st
r
e
a
m
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
2 ce
n
t
s
pe
r
ga
l
l
o
n
fu
e
l
ta
x
or
pr
o
r
a
t
e
d
sh
a
r
e
of
$5
‐
$8
TS
M
F
$5
M
‐$6
M
wi
t
h
de
b
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
of
$5
0
0
k
to
$7
0
0
k
pe
r
ye
a
r
fo
r
10
ye
a
r
s
.
Fu
n
d
s
are available as
so
o
n
as loan is closed. Cost of interest is higher than GO or Revenue Bonds, loan term is shorter than GO or Revenue Bonds. Likely requirement to pledge full faith and credit of City’s general taxing authority for loan of any size. Rate payers
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
Pa
g
e
1
of
1
Or
e
g
o
n
Ci
t
i
e
s
Da
t
a
fo
r
St
r
e
e
t
Sy
s
t
e
m
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Ci
t
y
Pa
s
s
a
g
e
D
a
t
e
Ta
x
R
a
t
e
(c
e
n
t
s
/
g
a
l
.
)
#
Ci
t
y
*
20
1
2
p
o
p
.
Pa
s
s
a
g
e
Da
t
e
Si
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
FY
1
3
Re
v
e
n
u
e
City2012 pop.Passage DateSingle Family FeeFY13 RevenuePassage DateLocal Fuel TaxFY13 Revenue
1
As
t
o
r
i
a
20
0
7
3
c
e
n
t
s
1
As
h
l
a
n
d
2
0
,
3
2
5
1
9
8
9
8.
1
7
$
1,
3
0
9
,
1
5
1
Medford 75,545 19918.45$ 7,698,484
2
Ca
n
b
y
20
0
8
3
c
e
n
t
s
2
Ba
y
C
i
t
y
*
1
,
3
0
5
2
0
0
3
5.
0
0
$
48
,
6
0
5
Tigard 48,695 20035.56$ 2,017,273 20063 cents $ 720,000
3
Co
b
u
r
g
20
0
7
3
c
e
n
t
s
3
Br
o
o
k
i
n
g
s
6
,
3
1
6
1
9
8
7
2.
9
4
$
13
1
,
2
0
2
Canby 15,865 2008 5.00$ 532,962 20083 cents $ 249,000
4
Co
q
u
i
l
l
e
20
0
7
3
c
e
n
t
s
4
Ca
n
b
y
1
5
,
8
6
5
2
0
0
8
5.
0
0
$
53
2
,
9
6
2
Milwaukie 20,435 20063.35$ 600,000 20072 cents $ 200,000
5
Co
r
n
e
l
i
u
s
20
0
9
2
c
e
n
t
s
5
Ca
n
n
o
n
B
e
a
c
h
1
,
6
9
2
1
9
9
1
.2
5
9
/
$
1
0
0
0
17
7
,
0
0
0
6
Co
t
t
a
ge
G
r
o
v
e
20
0
3
3
c
e
n
t
s
6
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
o
i
n
t
1
7
,
4
1
1
2
0
0
8
4.
9
8
$
33
5
,
8
2
0
7
Du
n
d
e
e
20
0
3
2
c
e
n
t
s
7
Cl
a
t
s
k
a
n
i
e
*
*
1
,
7
2
9
2
0
1
2
5.
5
0
$
81
,
3
9
7
8
Eu
gen
e
20
0
3
5
c
e
n
t
s
8
Co
r
v
a
l
l
i
s
5
5
,
0
5
5
2
0
0
5
1.
3
6
$
42
2
,
1
8
0
9
Ho
o
d
R
i
v
e
r
20
0
9
3
c
e
n
t
s
9
Du
f
u
r
*
*
6
0
9
2
0
0
1
5.
0
0
$
17
,
0
0
0
10
Mi
l
w
a
u
k
i
e
20
0
7
2
c
e
n
t
s
10
Ea
gle
P
o
i
n
t
8
,
5
5
0
1
9
9
0
6.
0
0
$
30
3
,
0
0
0
11
Ne
w
por
t
20
0
9
1
c
e
n
t
(
N
o
v
.
-
M
a
y
)
11
Fl
o
r
e
n
c
e
8
,
5
8
4
2
0
1
2
5.
0
0
$
26
5
,
7
2
4
Ne
w
por
t
20
0
9
3
c
e
n
t
s
(
J
u
n
e
-
O
c
t
.
)
12
Gr
a
n
t
s
P
a
s
s
3
4
,
7
4
0
2
0
0
1
3.
4
2
$
82
8
,
6
4
5
12
Oa
k
r
i
d
ge
20
0
4
3
c
e
n
t
s
13
Hi
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
9
2
,
5
5
0
2
0
0
8
3.
1
0
$
93
2
,
3
0
0
13
Sa
n
d
y
20
0
2
1
c
e
n
t
14
Hu
b
b
a
r
d
3
,
1
8
5
2
0
0
1
10
.
3
9
$
63
,
5
2
1
14
Si
s
t
e
r
s
20
0
9
3
c
e
n
t
s
15
La
G
r
a
n
d
e
1
3
,
1
1
0
2
0
0
9
8.
0
0
$
40
0
,
0
0
0
15
Spri
n
gfi
e
l
d
20
0
3
3
c
e
n
t
s
16
La
k
e
O
s
w
e
go
3
6
,
7
7
0
2
0
0
3
8.
2
7
$
2,
3
2
3
,
0
0
0
16
St
a
n
f
i
e
l
d
19
9
9
1
c
e
n
t
17
Me
d
f
o
r
d
7
5
,
5
4
5
1
9
9
1
8.
4
5
$
7,
6
9
8
,
4
8
4
17
Th
e
D
a
l
l
e
s
19
8
0
3
c
e
n
t
s
18
Mi
l
w
a
u
k
i
e
2
0
,
4
3
5
2
0
0
6
3.
3
5
$
60
0
,
0
0
0
18
Ti
gar
d
20
0
6
3
c
e
n
t
s
19
Myrt
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
3
,
4
2
7
2
0
1
0
3.
0
0
$
47
,
7
7
2
19
Ti
l
l
a
m
o
o
k
19
8
2
1
.
5
c
e
n
t
s
20
No
r
t
h
P
l
a
i
n
s
1
,
9
9
0
2
0
0
3
1.
3
3
$
20
,
0
0
0
20
Ve
n
e
t
a
20
0
4
3
c
e
n
t
s
21
Or
e
gon
C
i
t
y
3
2
,
5
0
0
2
0
0
8
11
.
5
6
$
1,
8
7
2
,
7
7
9
21
Wa
r
r
e
n
t
o
n
20
0
7
3
c
e
n
t
s
22
Ph
i
l
o
m
a
t
h
4
,
6
2
0
2
0
0
3
2.
0
0
$
52
,
5
0
0
22
Wo
o
d
b
u
r
n
19
8
9
1
c
e
n
t
23
Ph
o
e
n
i
x
4
,57
0
1
9
9
4
2.
2
1
$
12
8
,
8
7
9
24
Sh
e
r
w
o
o
d
1
8
,
7
7
1
2
0
0
7
2.
0
0
$
27
7
,
0
0
0
Pe
n
d
l
e
t
o
n
20
0
9
(
S
u
n
s
e
t
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
3
)
4
c
e
n
t
s
25
Si
l
v
e
r
t
o
n
9
,34
4
2
0
1
3
5.
0
0
$
13
5
,
0
0
0
26
St
a
yto
n
7
,
7
1
3
2
0
1
1
2.
5
0
$
84
,
0
0
0
27
Tal
e
n
t
6
,
1
1
5
2
0
0
0
3.
9
2
$
16
2
,
2
6
9
28
Tigar
d
4
8
,
6
9
5
2
0
0
3
5.
5
6
$
2,
0
1
7
,
2
7
3
29
Tol
e
d
o
3
,
4
6
2
2
0
0
9
3.
0
0
$
10
2
,
5
0
0
30
Tua
l
a
t
i
n
2
6
,
1
2
0
1
9
9
0
3.
9
2
$
64
7
,
6
0
8
31
We
s
t
L
i
n
n
2
5
,
3
7
0
2
0
0
8
10
.
3
1
$
87
0
,
0
0
0
32
Wi
l
s
o
n
v
i
l
l
e
2
0
,
5
1
5
1
9
9
7
4.
0
3
$
65
9
,
0
0
0
33
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
5
,
3
5
2
2
0
0
9
1.
5
0
$
62
,
3
6
2
34
Wo
o
d
V
i
l
l
a
ge
3
,
9
6
0
2
0
1
2
9.
5
0
$
16
4
,
7
4
3
Comparative Cities (LOC 2014)
Lo
c
a
l
G
a
s
T
a
x
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
(L
O
C
2
0
1
4
)
*B
a
y
Ci
t
y
'
s
ro
a
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
fe
e
is
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
by
or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
,
bu
t
th
e
fe
e
is
se
t
by
re
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
.
**
s
t
r
e
e
t
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
f
e
e
s
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
f
e
e
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
ion
Util
i
ty
Fe
e
(L
O
C
20
1
4
)
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
Pa
g
e
1
of
1
#
Ye
a
r
C
i
t
y
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
20
1
2
Si
n
g
l
e
Fa
m
i
l
y
Mu
l
t
i
‐Fa
m
i
l
y
Se
n
i
o
r
ho
u
s
i
n
g
/
Mo
b
i
l
e
Ho
m
e
pa
r
k
s
Se
n
i
o
r
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
/
Co
n
g
r
e
g
a
t
e
Ca
r
e
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Affordable HousingCommercial‐Billing UnitCollection Method
1
19
8
9
A
s
h
l
a
n
d
20
,
3
2
5
$8
.
1
7
MonthlyUtility bill
2
20
0
3
B
a
y
Ci
t
y
1,
3
0
5
$5
.
0
0
EDU rateMonthlyUtility bill
3
19
8
7
B
r
o
o
k
i
n
g
s
6,
3
1
6
$2
.
9
4
$2
.
9
4
per meter, $2.94MonthlyUtility bill
4
20
0
8
C
a
n
b
y
15
,
8
6
5
$5
.
0
0
$3
.
3
4
$2
.
0
9
$1
.
0
4
Trip Rate*Category*.522MonthlyCollected on Sewer and TUF Utility
5
19
9
1
C
a
n
n
o
n
Be
a
c
h
1,
6
9
2
$0
.
2
5
9
Per 1,000 assessed valueProperty taxes
6
20
0
8
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Po
i
n
t
1
7
,
4
1
1
$4
.
9
8
AD
T
pe
r
KS
F
.2
2
0
7
$1
1
.
2
0
ADT per KSF .5203MonthlyUtility bill
7
20
1
2
C
l
a
t
s
k
a
n
i
e
1,
7
2
9
$5
.
5
0
$5
.
5
0
$5
.
5
0
$8.00 Utility bill
8
20
0
5
C
o
r
v
a
l
l
i
s
55
,
0
5
5
$1
.
3
6
$0
.
9
4
.021 per daily tripMonthlyUtility bill
9
20
0
1
D
u
f
u
r
60
9
$5
.
0
0
$5
.
0
0
$5.00 MonthlyUtility bill
10
19
9
0
Ea
g
l
e
Po
i
n
t
1
8,
5
5
0
$6
.
0
0
Tr
i
p
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
i
p
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
i
p
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Trip generationMonthlyUtility bill
11
20
1
2
Fl
o
r
e
n
c
e
2
8,
4
8
4
$5
.
0
0
$5
.
0
0
$5.00 MonthlyUtility bill
12
20
0
1
G
r
a
n
t
s
Pa
s
s
34
,
7
4
0
$3
.
4
2
$2
.
2
8
$1
.
7
1
$0
.
8
5
MonthlyUtility bill
13
20
0
8
Hi
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
2
92
,
5
5
0
$3
.
1
0
MonthlyUtility bill
14
20
0
1
H
u
b
b
a
r
d
3,
1
8
5
$1
0
.
3
9
BimonthlyUtility bill
15
20
0
9
La
Gr
a
n
d
e
3
13
,
1
1
0
$8
.
0
0
$4
.
0
0
$8
.
0
0
$8.00 MonthlyUtility bill
16
20
0
3
L
a
k
e
Os
w
e
g
o
36
,
7
7
0
$8
.
2
7
MonthlyUtility bill
17
19
9
1
M
e
d
f
o
r
d
75
,
5
4
5
$8
.
4
5
$6
.
7
5
39
.
6
1
/
a
c
r
e
di
v
i
d
e
d
by
# of
MH
.
$4
.
2
5
Average Daily Trips blended trip ends/.553/trip end No cap‐a self regulating capMonthlyUtility bill
18
20
0
6
M
i
l
w
a
u
k
i
e
20
,
4
3
5
$3
.
3
5
$2
.
1
0
$1
.
4
0
$0
.
7
0
average daily traffic generation based on Land Use x rate per trip ($.35) cap at $250MonthlyUtility bill
19
20
1
0
M
y
r
t
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
3,
4
2
7
$3
.
0
0
MonthlyUtility bill
20
20
0
3
N
o
r
t
h
Pl
a
i
n
s
1,
9
9
0
$1
.
3
3
Per tripUtility bill
21
20
0
8
Or
e
g
o
n
Ci
t
y
4
32
,
5
0
0
$1
1
.
5
6
$8
.
1
2
$1
1
.
5
6
$1
.
9
8
/
b
e
d
type and size of developmentMonthlyUtility bill
22
20
0
3
P
h
i
l
o
m
a
t
h
4,
6
2
0
$2
.
0
0
$1
.
6
0
6.80‐22.75MonthlyUtility bill
TU
F
Fe
e
/
m
o
n
t
h
LO
C
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Us
e
r
Fe
e
Su
r
v
e
y
20
1
4
1
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
Pa
g
e
1
#
Ye
a
r
C
i
t
y
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
20
1
2
Si
n
g
l
e
Fa
m
i
l
y
Mu
l
t
i
‐Fa
m
i
l
y
Se
n
i
o
r
ho
u
s
i
n
g
/
Mo
b
i
l
e
Ho
m
e
pa
r
k
s
Se
n
i
o
r
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
/
Co
n
g
r
e
g
a
t
e
Ca
r
e
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Affordable HousingCommercial‐Billing UnitCollection Method
TU
F
Fe
e
/
m
o
n
t
h
LO
C
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Us
e
r
Fe
e
Su
r
v
e
y
20
1
4
23
19
9
4
P
h
o
e
n
i
x
4,
5
7
0
$2
.
2
1
$1
.
4
6
$1
.
0
9
ITE trip counts. Traffic Flow for Street User. Flat rate for Hwy99 user fee.MonthlyUtility bill
24
20
0
7
S
h
e
r
w
o
o
d
18
,
7
7
1
$2
.
0
0
$2
.
0
0
/
E
D
U
2.00/ESUMonthlyUtility bill
25
20
1
3
S
i
l
v
e
r
t
o
n
9,
3
4
4
$5
.
0
0
MonthlyUtility bill
26
20
1
1
St
a
y
t
o
n
5
7,
7
1
3
$2
.
5
0
$1
.
1
2
$1
.
0
4
/
Mo
b
i
l
e
Ho
m
e
.5
0
/
l
i
v
i
n
g
un
i
t
trips per day $5.00, $10.00, $20.00MonthlyUtility bill
27
20
0
0
T
a
l
e
n
t
6,
1
1
5
$3
.
9
2
MonthlyUtility bill
28
20
0
3
T
i
g
a
r
d
48
,
6
9
5
$5
.
8
3
$5
.
8
3
Now is # of parking spaces and a cap of 200 spaces. Now cap is at 250 spaces.MonthlyUtility bill
29
20
0
9
T
o
l
e
d
o
3,
4
6
2
$3
.
0
0
$2
.
1
0
rate schedule based on traffic rating. See resolutionMonthlyUtility bill
30
19
9
0
T
u
a
l
a
t
i
n
26
,
1
2
0
$3
.
9
2
MonthlyUtility bill
31
20
0
8
W
e
s
t
Li
n
n
25
,
3
7
0
$1
0
.
3
1
$9
.
7
8
N/
A
Based on # trips Home based 5.89/month 0 to 50 ‐ 5.89/month 51 to 250 ‐ .66/trip 251‐500 ‐ .79/trip 501+ trips ‐ .90/tripMonthlyUtility bill
32
19
9
7
W
i
l
s
o
n
v
i
l
l
e
20
,
5
1
5
$4
.
0
3
$2
.
6
2
$4
.
0
3
$1
0
.
4
6
Trip generation/Truck trafficMonthlyUtility bill
33
20
0
9
W
i
n
s
t
o
n
5,
3
5
2
$1
.
5
0
$1
.
5
0
$1
.
5
0
$1.50 MonthlyUtility bill
34
20
1
2
W
o
o
d
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
3,
96
0
$9
.
5
0
$6
.
4
4
25
%
di
s
c
o
u
n
t
average daily traffic generation x rate per trip MonthlyUtility bill
2
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
Pa
g
e
2
Oregon Cities Face a $300 Million Funding Gap
for Street Maintenance and Preservation
Oregonians rely on the state’s integral transportation network on a daily basis and have come to expect
a safe and dependable system. According to the Oregon Department of Transportation’s 2012 State of
the System report, goods‐dependent industries like manufacturing, agriculture, construction and retail
provided nearly 600,000 jobs and generated $26 billion of personal income in 2011 alone.
Unfortunately, Oregon’s transportation infrastructure is getting older and more expensive to maintain,
preserve and expand. Many important structures are between 50‐80 years old, and increased
maintenance investments will be necessary to keep older facilities safe and operational. In addition to
the challenge of maintaining aging infrastructure, Oregon’s population is expected to increase more
than 25 percent between 2010 and 2030, creating increased demand and new and continuing
challenges for the transportation system.
Funding vs. Need
Oregon’s road system is
showing significant signs of
distress; and transportation
funding is not keeping up
with the need. For example,
the federal gas tax has not
increased since 1993. These
funds make up the majority
of revenues flowing into the
Federal Highway Trust Fund
for surface transportation
programs. In 2009, the Oregon Legislature approved the Jobs and Transportation Act, which increased
the state gas tax, vehicle title and registration fees, and weight‐mile fees. However it was not enough.
Cities are still facing a funding gap of more than $300 million for street maintenance and preservation.
This funding gap was discovered through an email survey sent to executive staff at Oregon’s 242 cities.
The League received 154 responses (64 percent of all cities) representing 90 percent of Oregon’s city
population.
Population Number of Responding
Cities
Percent of Responding
Cities
Percent of Oregon
Cities
999 or less 43 28% 34%
1,000 to 4,999 50 32% 35%
5,000 to 19,999 35 23% 20%
20,000 to 49,999 15 10% 7%
50,000 to 149,999 8 5% 3%
150,000 or above 3 2% 1%
$120,738,862
$426,719,520
$0
$100,000,000
$200,000,000
$300,000,000
$400,000,000
$500,000,000
Maintenance Expenditure Maintenance Need
Fiscal Year 2012‐13 City Maintenance
Expenditure vs. Need
Attachment 6
Page 1
Pavement preservation is the most
cost‐effective method of street
maintenance. However it requires the
completion of key projects at critical
points in the pavement cycle.
Currently, most cities do not have
adequate resources to conduct proper
street maintenance. The city of
Florence noted that “with the lack of
adequate funding, the city streets
continue to deteriorate.” The lack of
funding has forced cities to make
tough choices on where money is
spent, and a number of cities can only
maintain arterials and collectors at the cost of the city’s residential streets. Cannon Beach is
continuously deferring residential street maintenance, and for some neighborhoods it has been as long
as 40 years since the last surface maintenance. In St. Helens, street maintenance activities have become
reactive – filling potholes, emergency repairs, etc., until the street reaches the point of total failure –
because they do not have sufficient funding for a proactive pavement maintenance/repair program.
Meanwhile, Salem eliminated preventative pavement maintenance four years ago. Lacking proper
maintenance and timely repairs, paved roadways will fail and require costly reconstruction – six to 10
times the cost of regular maintenance.
Cities of all sizes are
struggling to fund street
maintenance, but larger
cities have a greater unmet
need, due to the fact that
they are responsible for
maintaining a larger
transportation system.
Exploring Other Funding Options
In order to close the street maintenance funding gap, cities are looking into other revenue raising
options. Two options available to local governments are transportation utility fees (TUF) and a voter
approved local gas tax. According to the League’s survey, 32 cities (21 percent) have enacted a TUF. In
2008, Hillsboro passed a TUF based on trip generation, but the city is still facing a deferred maintenance
deficit of $11.7 million. According to League studies and the Oregon Department of Transportation,
there are currently 22 cities with a local gas tax – 14 responded to the League’s survey.
On average, cities that have a local street maintenance fee/tax are better able to meet their
maintenance needs than cities without one. For example, because Sandy has a local gas tax, the city
does well on street maintenance funding. However, a gas tax is not necessarily a panacea – the city still
has little or no funding for capital improvements. According to survey respondents, 41 (27 percent)
cities are currently looking into new revenue raising options in order to help address the growing
Population Median Number of
Lane Miles
Median Funding Gap
999 or less 7 $29,000
1,000 to 4,999 21 $120,000
5,000 to 19,999 79 $328,568
20,000 to 49,999 215 $679,694
50,000 to 149,999 508 $1,611,208
150,000 or above 1,328 $8,306,655
IMPACTS OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
“The street system is definitely impacting economic
development prospects for the city.” – City of Mt. Angel
“Some of the major business owners in the city have been
complaining about the access to their facilities, which could
affect economic viability if they relocate.” – City of
Newberg
“A recent traffic accident was blamed on a sunken road
section that caused the driver to lose control of their
vehicle.” – City of Coos Bay
Attachment 6
Page 2
backlog of street maintenance
and preservation. For example,
the city of Coos Bay convened a
Citizen Street Task Force in the
summer of 2013 to consider
potential funding sources for
street maintenance, and the
Dallas City Council appointed a
Citizen Involvement Committee in
June 2012 to examine the issue of
funding residential street repair
and maintenance. These city
councils will be faced with
difficult decisions on the best option for funding street maintenance in their city, and will need to
evaluate which funding mechanism is the right one for their community.
More Info – cities are asked to contact the League with questions or to obtain additional information
regarding this survey.
$706,725 $521,890
$2,623,167
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
Cities with a gas taxCities with a TUFCities with no local
tax/fee
Average Maintenance Funding Gap
Photos provided by the city of
McMinnville from their summer 2013
pavement preservation work.
Attachment 6
Page 3