HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Street Repair Ballot Measure AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/20/2016
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Anette Spickard, DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-3697
Estimated Time: 30 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 REPAIR BALLOT MEASURE
ACTION REQUESTED: Provide staff direction on potential street repair ballot measure to refer to voters in November 2016.
ISSUE STATEMENT: Staff will present options for potential street repair revenue measures to fund street system preservation and repair projects.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memorandum
2. Executive Summary of Voter Survey Results 3. Map of example projects for 2 cent fuel tax increase
4. Map of example projects for 3 cent fuel tax increase
5. Complete list of High Priority Street Preservation and Repair Projects
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
At Council’s January 25, 2016 work session, staff presented the results of the City’s
2015 pavement condition report along with the list of unfunded High Priority Street
Preservation and Repair projects. Council discussed several options for financing these projects and directed staff to conduct a scientific survey of registered voters to gauge the community’s interest in improving street quality and their opinion of a
fuel tax and/or general obligation bond (property tax) to fund needed repairs.
The survey was conducted in late May 2016 and results received by the City in
early June. Staff has attached the executive summary of the survey results for Council review (Attachment 2). In short, the survey revealed that voters are aware
of the poor condition of the street system, addressing the backlog is a priority and
there is support for a modest tax increase to keep the situation from becoming insurmountable. Results show support for a 2 cent fuel tax increase and potential
support for a 3 cent fuel tax increase. Respondents preferred a fuel tax because it is directly related to usage and is seen as more fair than a property tax. There is little support for a general obligation bond (property tax) measure at this time.
While the City no longer has a pavement preservation program due to cutbacks that occurred in 2007, the City has been successful in leveraging federal and state
dollars to maintain our most critical arterial and collector streets. Even with these investments 42% of arterials and more than 50% of the collectors and local streets
are now rated in poor condition. The estimated cost of the repair backlog is $30
million. Staff will present example project lists of what could be completed in a five year period if a new revenue stream is approved by voters.
If Council would like to ask voters for approval of a tax measure to fund street repairs, Council can give direction to staff at this work session to prepare language
for a Ballot Title, Measure, and Summary for the November 2016 election and
bring those back to Council for a vote at the July 18, 2016 regular session. If Council wishes to continue the discussion, another work session is scheduled for
July 11, 2016.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 6/20/2016
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Anette Spickard, DPW Director
Jeff Paschall, City Engineer
Brian Conlon, Operations Division Manager
BRIEFING
Subject: Street Repair Ballot Measure MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: Staff will present options for potential street repair revenue measures to fund street
system preservation and repair projects.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
BACKGROUND:
One of the City’s fundamental responsibilities is to maintain our infrastructure systems, such as
the street system, to provide quality neighborhoods, safe and efficient modes of travel, and to
support commerce. A key element of the street system is the quality of the roadway itself. Staff conducts a pavement condition survey every other year as part of our asset management
program. The 2015 condition survey results were presented to Council in January 2016. More
than half of the City’s streets are now in poor condition and the need for an investment in street repair and preservation projects is reaching a critical point. The estimated cost of the repair
backlog is $30 million.
Council efforts to address street preservation funding
The City’s street repair backlog continues to grow as a result of not having an active pavement
preservation and repair program for the last eight years. The program had been funded by $1 million in annual federal pass through dollars from the county road fund to the City. Those funds
ended in 2007 and the pavement preservation program ended as well.
The Mayor appointed a Street Preservation Task Force in 2008 to make recommendations to Council for preservation funding. The Task Force recommended a Street Preservation Fee
which was not implemented. In 2009 the Council referred a two cent increase in the gas tax to the voters which did not pass. In 2013 the Council considered a Transportation Utility Fee but
chose not implement. In 2014 the Council supported the County’s effort to pass a Vehicle
Registration Fee but that too did not pass.
In 2015 staff conducted an updated pavement condition analysis and presented the results to
Council on January 25, 2016. Council discussed several options for financing the needed repair
and preservation projects (see Attachment 5) and directed staff to conduct a scientific survey of registered voters to gauge the community’s interest in improving street quality and their opinion
of a fuel tax and/or general obligation bond (property tax) to fund needed repairs.
The survey was conducted by phone at the end of May 2016 and the results are compiled from 400 responses from registered Springfield voters with a margin of error of +/- 5%. Participants
were asked a number of questions designed to gauge their opinion on budget priorities, quality
of life in Springfield, their opinion of street conditions, their awareness of the City’s efforts to address the street repair situation, their willingness to pay for better street quality through either
a fuel tax or general obligation bond, as well as whether a tax should be temporary or permanent.
The high level survey findings show that:
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM 6/15/2016 Page 2
64% agreed our streets are in serious disrepair; however 63% are not aware of the City’s efforts to address the backlog.
62% support a modest tax increase to repair Springfield’s streets.
When given a choice of tax methods to pay for street repairs, 52% prefer a fuel tax
increase, 27% prefer a general obligation bond, and 19% do not want a tax increase of any amount.
There is 62% likely support for a 2 cent fuel tax increase.
There is 55% likely support for a 3 cent fuel tax increase.
52% said that the Council does not need a sunset clause on the fuel tax in order to have their support.
55% said the Council’s endorsement of a measure has the highest impact on their decision whether to support a measure.
50% agreed that the elected officials in Springfield are completely trustworthy.
The consultant’s recommendation based upon the survey results is: “assuming a 2 cent per
gallon increase in the local fuel tax will generate a sufficient amount of money to address the growing problems related to the backlog…the City should ask Springfield voters to authorize a 2
cent per gallon increase” and “if 2 cents does not yield sufficient revenues… then asking for a 3
cent per gallon increase is feasible…. In either case a structured public outreach effort will be needed.” (See page 3 of Attachment 2).
Listed below are the previous strategies presented to Council at the January 25, 2016 work
session with updates from the results of the survey.
Tax Measure options for consideration
Option 1 – Status Quo. Staff continues to pursue federal and state funds for the key corridors
only. The next time Springfield is eligible to apply for STP-U funding is 2019. Staff will
continue to repair streets damaged by City stormwater and sewer projects. Overall conditions will continue to deteriorate.
Pros – no impact to taxpayers
Cons – does not resolve the problem and creates higher future costs to city, to residents and to businesses. STP-U funds cannot be spent on local streets.
Survey findings – 64% agreed that city streets and roadways are in serious disrepair. 62% support a modest increase to address the issue in order to avoid having the problem become
insurmountable. The survey results indicate the status quo is not acceptable.
Option 2 – Eliminate the repair backlog over twenty years. Prepare a general obligation
bond package for voter consideration in November 2016. A new $30 Million bond repaid over
twenty years would add approximately 47 cents per 1,000 to the existing rate and would cost the average home owner $66 per year.
Pros – Ask voters one time to invest in their community. Resources are available to proceed
with backlog elimination. Creates private sector construction jobs over many years with corresponding secondary impacts to local economy. Allows City to use STP-U funds for
economic development projects instead of street repairs.
Cons – Does not consider other capital construction needs the City may wish to pursue such as a Library. Increases tax rate.
Survey findings – 37.5% likely support for a traditional 20 year GO bond.
Option 3 a – Eliminate a portion of the repair backlog over ten years. Prepare a smaller general obligation bond package for voter consideration in 2016. An $8 Million bond repaid
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 4
MEMORANDUM 6/15/2016 Page 3
over ten years would equate to a bond rate of approximately 24 cents per 1,000 and cost the average homeowner $40 per year.
Option 3 b – Eliminate a portion of the repair backlog over twenty years. Prepare a smaller
general obligation bond package for voter consideration in 2016. A $15 Million bond repaid over twenty years would equate to a bond rate of approximately 24 cents per 1,000 and cost the
average homeowner $40 per year.
Pros – Provides resources to address highest priority critical projects to avoid higher future costs. Creates private sector construction jobs with corresponding secondary impacts to local
economy over many years. If Council choses 3a, Council could return to voters for another
bond in ten years to complete remaining projects with a demonstrated track record of street repairs and the ability to keep taxes down. Allows City to use STP-U funds for economic
development projects instead of street repairs. Tax rate returns to just below 2015 level.
Cons – Does not address the full backlog and does not consider other capital construction needs the City may wish to pursue.
Survey findings – 44% to 46% likely support respectively. A smaller bond paid off over a shorter period of time received higher support but still did not garner enough support to be recommended as an option by the survey consultant.
Option 4 – Prepare a general obligation bond package that addresses all street preservation
projects plus other high priority capital construction projects identified in the Capital
Improvement Program that are unfunded such as a new Library and/or seismic retrofits to City buildings. Potentially a $50 - $100 Million bond request.
Pros – Addresses many if not all of the City’s capital needs with one vote.
Cons – Increases taxes depending on size of bond measure.
Survey findings – Per Council direction at the January 25, 2016 work session this concept was
not tested specifically, however voters were asked to prioritize City spending on a new Library
against street repairs and 89% ranked street repairs their top or second priority while 38% ranked a new Library as their top or second priority. It is important to note that the survey was designed
to explore opinions regarding street repairs and was not designed to test support for a new Library specifically.
Option 5 – Ask Springfield voters to approve an increase in the local fuel tax. Springfield’s current tax rate is 3 cents per gallon and over the last three years has generated an average of $1.1 Million per year that is used to support current operations as described above. Each
additional penny of tax is estimated to raise $370,000.
Pros – fuel taxes provide a steady revenue stream and provide an efficient method for collection.
The tax is directly related to the use of the roads. The state collects the tax and there is no new
administrative cost if the tax is increased.
Cons – Consumers may be concerned about a tax increase and the impact to their pocketbook.
However the full tax is unlikely to be passed through at the pump to consumers. The gas price
market is volatile as we have seen with the recent pricing. On average about 39 percent of an increase in fuel tax is implemented at the pump and an additional 16 percent of the gas tax
increase is passed through over the next 30 days.1 Market dynamics are the major drivers of
gasoline prices, not fuel taxes alone. The four factors that drive the retail price Americans pay at the gas pump, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), are: (1) the price
of crude oil; (2) refining costs and profit margins; (3) retail and distribution costs and profit
margins; and (4) taxes.2 This is further supported by the Association for Convenience and
1 How a Gas Tax Increase Affects the Retail Pump Price An Economic Analysis of 2013-14 Market Impacts in 5 States, Dr. Alison Premo Black
2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, What Drives U.S. Gasoline Prices?, October 2014.
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 4
MEMORANDUM 6/15/2016 Page 4
Petroleum Retailing which says factors that contribute to different retail gasoline prices within a given geographic area include distribution costs, regulatory mandated fuel blend requirements,
business costs, market conditions, the brand of fuel, taxes and the pricing strategy of the
individual retail outlet.3
Survey findings - There is 62% likely support for a 2 cent fuel tax increase. There is 55% likely support for a 3 cent fuel tax increase. 52% said that the Council does not need a sunset clause on
the fuel tax in order to have their support. Fuel taxes are perceived as fairer than property taxes because they are directly related to usage and are paid by visitors and residents alike. A 2 cent
increase equalizes Springfield to Eugene’s 5 cent per gallon local fuel tax.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Council discussion of the revenue options,
survey results and example street repair project lists. Staff asks for direction on a Ballot Title, Measure, and Summary to prepare for Council consideration at the July 18, 2016 regular
meeting.
3 NACS Gas Price Kit
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 4
Needs Analysis &
Feasibility Study
Scientific Voter Survey
Commissioned by…
May 2016
City of Springfield
Oregon
Conductedby...
Strategy Research Institute
An Institute for CONSENSUS BUILDING
www.sri-consulting.org
(800) 224-7608
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 10
Needs Analysis and Feasibility Study Executive Summary for Council, 2016
FINAL REPORT, Strategy Research Institute i | Page
Page
Table of Contents
Section 1.0 Situation Analysis 1
Section 2.0 Executive Summary 2
Section 3.0 Findings ...... 4
Section 4.0 Summary Conclusion . 7
... 9
.. 33
............ 46
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 10
Needs Analysis and Feasibility Study Executive Summary for Council, 2016
FINAL REPORT, Strategy Research Institute 1 | Page
Section 1.0
Situation Analysis
The City of Springfield, Oregon, is a municipal government serving a population of
approximately 60,000 residents. The City is responsible for operating and maintaining
the transportation system, which includes a roadway network of approximately 442 lane
miles comprised of local, collector, and arterial streets. The City rates the condition of
the pavement every two years and the most recent condition report, completed in
December 2015, shows that 51% of the City’s streets are rated in poor condition and
29% are rated in fair condition. The estimated cost of the City’s needed street repair and
preservation work is $30 million.
The City pays for transportation system operations and maintenance with a local
fuel tax of 3-cents per gallon, plus its share of the State’s fuel tax, which together
provides approximately $5 million annually. Until 2007, the City received County Road
Funds through a revenue-sharing agreement and used those funds for local street repairs
and preservation. Today, the City relies upon federal and state grants to pay for
preservation of the highest priority arterial streets, but has no revenue stream for repair
and preservation of the remainder of the roadway work.
The City, basically, has two alternatives for securing funds to pay for street
maintenance, including a growing backlog of deferred maintenance projects. The first
one results from the State’s preemption on raising local fuel taxes having been lifted;
thus, the City Council can now ask local voters to authorize an increase in the City’s fuel
tax. The second alternative is to ask Springfield voters to approve a G.O. Bond (General
Obligation Bond), backed by property taxes, to pay for street repair and preservation
projects.
Thus, the purpose of the present scientific survey of Springfield voters is to
determine: (i) which of the two alternatives do Springfield voters prefer for addressing
this growing need (a modest increase in the City’s fuel tax OR authorizing a G.O. bond);
and (ii) what is their collective THRESHOLD of willingness to pay for these services?
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 10
Needs Analysis and Feasibility Study Executive Summary for Council, 2016
FINAL REPORT, Strategy Research Institute 2 | Page
Section 2.0
Executive Summary
The answers to the core
questions from the present
scientific survey of Springfield
voters can be seen in the three
graphics below (also, refer to
Figures 5B, 7A-1, 7B, 7C-1, and
&7D-1 in Addendum A).
The bottom-line findings are…
1) An increase in the local Fuel Tax is preferred, by far, vs. a G.O. Bond (52:27 percent) for
generating the funding needed to address the present crisis involving proper maintenance
of Springfield streets and roadways. Nearly twenty percent (19%) of local voters said neither
one, which is tantamount to saying they do NOT support increasing local taxes in order to
address this growing crisis (above graphic, lower left).
2) More than forty percent (43%) of local voters said they would be willing to pay a
MODEST INCREASE in local taxes to address this growing crisis; nearly twenty percent
(19%) said they would be willing to pay a larger increase in order to eliminate the
BACKLOG of road and street maintenance projects (above graphic, top right). Thus
(added together), slightly over sixty percent (62%) of Springfield voters are willing to
pay a MODEST increase in the City’s fuel tax in order to avoid having this problem
become insurmountable. (refer to language in Q3.2).
THRESHOLD of Willingness to Pay
Voter Support BEFORETHRESHOLD of Willingness to Pay tested
5¢
per gal
3¢
per gal
2¢
per gal
50%41%55%62%
19%
Larger Increase to eliminatebacklog
43%ModestIncrease in Local Taxes
27%No IncreaseMake Cutbacks
11%Unsure/Refused
Preferences
for AddressingStreet Maintenance Crisis
9%
Increase
nge Crisis
Likely Support for MODEST increase62%
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 10
Needs Analysis and Feasibility Study Executive Summary for Council, 2016
FINAL REPORT, Strategy Research Institute 3 | Page
3) Thus, the bottom-line question becomes, “What is the local electorate’s collective
THRESHOLD of willingness to pay”? In other words, how much of an increase per gallon
of gas are Springfield voters willing to authorize in order to make it possible for the City
to make needed repairs to City streets and roadways (including addressing at least some
of the deferred maintenance)? The answer to this question can be seen in the previous
matrix (lower right portion of the graphic); specifically, the answer is as follows:
A 5-cent per gallon increase in the local fuel tax is simply out of the question;
this would result in approximately 41% voter support, thus, the funding Measure
would FAIL to secure requisite simple-majority support needed for passage.
An increase of 3-cents per gallon is, indeed, feasible; this would likely secure
approximately 55% voter support. This assumes, of course, that local voters are
made aware of the need for these monies.
A 2-cent per gallon increase would bring relatively strong voter support (62%)
among Springfield voters; which mirrors likely voter support reported above
(refer to Point #2 AND graphic on previous page, top right).
Therefore, assuming a 2-cent per gallon increase in the local fuel tax will
generate a sufficient amount of money to address the growing problems related to the
City’s road and street maintenance, including reducing a significant portion of the
existing BACKLOG of street maintenance projects…it is SRI’s recommendation that the
City asks Springfield voters to authorize a 2-cent per gallon increase in the local fuel tax
(raising this tax from 3 to 5-cents per gallon of gas). This will virtually ensure a
successful funding Measure; beyond that, it will keep the amount of fuel tax on par with
the City of Eugene, which at the present time is 5-cents per gallon. Increasing this tax by
3-cents per gallon would push the local fuel tax in Springfield
1-cent above the 5-cents per gallon that is presently being assessed in Eugene.
That said, if 2-cents per gallon does NOT yield sufficient revenues to adequately
address the growing problem, then asking for a 3-cent per gallon increase, as noted
above, is feasible. Should this be the case, then it will be even more essential for City
officials to make salient to Springfield voters the need for these monies and the
consequences of not addressing this crisis due to lack of funding; specifically, that if not
addressed in a timely fashion, these problems will become insurmountable.
The remainder of the present discussion will focus on the findings from the
present scientific voter survey that is central to the issue at hand, including the
‘intelligence’ needed for structuring a public outreach effort that will, indeed, make
salient to Springfield voters the need for these monies.
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 10
Needs Analysis and Feasibility Study Executive Summary for Council, 2016
FINAL REPORT, Strategy Research Institute 4 | Page
63%NoPreviouslyNot Aware
34%Yes
PreviouslyAware
2%NotBelievable
1%Unsure/Refused
Before the Present Interview Aware
of Pressures with Regard toProper Street Maintenance
Section 3.0
Findings
Finding #1: Most local voters are
satisfied with their quality of life in
the City of Springfield.
As seen in the graphic at right (also
refer to Figure 1 in Addendum ‘A’), most
voters (87%) are satisfied with the quality of
life they enjoy as a resident of Springfield;
indeed 40% are “extremely satisfied”.
Finding #2: A clear majority of
Springfield voters AGREE that City
streets and roadways are in SERIOUS
disrepair.
As seen in the graphic at left (also refer
to Figure 2-A), a clear majority (64%) of local
voters agree with the notion that City streets
are presently in serious disrepair and in need
of being repaired or resurfaced.
Finding #3: Most voters are NOT
AWARE of City’s efforts to make needed
repairs to City streets and roadways.
When asked, “Before the present interview,
were you aware of the pressures the City has been
under with respect to trying to keep City streets
and roadways properly maintained and get caught
up with the growing backlog of deferred street
maintenance through the community?”, nearly
two-thirds (63%) said NO (see graphic at right and
refer to Figure 4) .
Satisfaction with…
Quality of Life
40 47
5 6 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent87%Satisfied
8%
Dissatisfied
Extremely Somewhat Unsure Somewhat ExtremelySatisfied Refused Dissatisfied
City Streets & Roadways are in…Serious Disrepair
27 37
13 18
5 00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent64%Agree
23%Disagree
Strongly Somewhat No Somewhat Strongly RefAgree Opinion Disagree
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 10
Needs Analysis and Feasibility Study Executive Summary for Council, 2016
FINAL REPORT, Strategy Research Institute 5 | Page
Finding #4: Addressing this
problem is seen as a high priority
among Springfield voters.
As seen in the graphic at right (also
refer to Figure 3), addressing the growing
BACKLOG of deferred street maintenance
AND repairing pot holes are top priorities
among Springfield voters, when
compared to imposing a tax on the sale of
recreational marijuana and constructing a
new public library
Finding #5: Support for increasing
the local Fuel Tax is an exception to the rule.
The significance of the finding that Springfield voters are willing to support an
increase in the local fuel tax in order to make needed repairs to City streets and
roadways (so long as the amount of
increase does NOT exceed their
THRESHOLD of willingness to pay)
can be seen in the finding (at left)
that nearly twice the ratio of voters
(43:28 percent) believe that
necessary programs can be funded
without new taxes (also, refer to
Figure 2C). In other words, funding
necessary repairs to City streets and
roadways is seen as being an
“exception” to the rule.
PPriority Spending
of Local Tax Dollars
(3.0 series, rank-ordered)
Address growing BACKLOG of Deferred Street Maintenance
Repair Pot Holes
Impose 3% tax on Sale of Recreational Marijuana
Construct NEW Public Library
Top +Second Priority
39
40
25
48
49
44
29
0 102030405060708090100
Percent
89
87
69
389
There is Much Waste in Budget…
Necessary Programs Can Be Funded Without New Taxes
22 21 27 20 8
20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent90999999999999
43%Agree 28%Disagree
Strongly Somewhat No Somewhat Strongly RefAgree Opinion Disagree
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 10
Needs Analysis and Feasibility Study Executive Summary for Council, 2016
FINAL REPORT, Strategy Research Institute 6 | Page
Finding #6: It is essential that City officials EXPLAIN to Springfield voters
the need for increasing the Fuel Tax in order to make the needed
improvements to City streets and roads, as well as address the growing
deferred maintenance projects.
Especially given the fact that approximately two-thirds (63%) of Springfield voters
are NOT AWARE of the past efforts of City officials to address the growing crisis involving
street repairs and deferred maintenance throughout the community, it is essential that
voters are made aware of these efforts, as well as the consequences of allowing this
situation to continue.
Finding #7: A ‘Sunset Clause’ in the funding Measure is not necessary in
order to secure authorization to increase the City’s Fuel Tax, especially if the
increase is limited to 2-cents per gallon of gas.
As can be seen in the two graphics below (also, refer to Figures 8A and 8B),
incorporating either a 20-year or 10-year ‘Sunset Clause’ in the proposed funding
Measure makes NO DIFFERENCE to more than half of Springfield voters (53% and 52%,
respectively). Clearly, the majority of Springfield voters understand that the need for
proper maintenance of City streets and roadways is NOT short-lived; indeed, this need
will continue into perpetuity.
That said, the need for incorporating a Sunset Clause into this funding Measure is
far less if the “ask” is for a 2-cent increase vs. a 3-cent increase per gallon of gas
purchased in Springfield. More specifically, should a decision be made to ask for a
3-cent per gallon increase, then it would be wise to design the funding Measure to
17%Somewhat More YES
24%Much MoreYES
53%NoDifference
Voter Support for a… 20-year Sunset Clause
6%Unsure/Refused
11%SomewhatMore YES
33%Much MoreYES(at 8.1 + 8.2)
52%No Difference
4%Unsure/Refused
Voter Support for a… 10-year Sunset Clause
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 10
Needs Analysis and Feasibility Study Executive Summary for Council, 2016
FINAL REPORT, Strategy Research Institute 7 | Page
‘sunset’ (terminate) in 20 years, which will yield about 24% additional voter support;
better yet, incorporate a 10-year ‘sunset’ clause, which will bring 33% additional voter
support for the Measure.
Finding #8: Springfield Counselors have earned a great deal of trust among
local voters; this will bode well should City Council choose to place a funding
Measure on the local ballot.
As can be seen in the graph below (right), half of the respondents (50%) in the
present scientific survey AGREED with the statement, “Elected officials in the City of
Springfield are completely trustworthy”; only 15% disagreed with this notion.
This means that there is relatively
little controversy with respect to the City’s
leadership; thus, most Springfield voters
will be inclined to believe City officials
when they explain the need to increase the
Fuel Tax in order to address the pressing
need to bring City streets and roads up to
par AND the consequences if nothing is
done to address these needs in the near
future.
This, combined with the fact that
most Springfield voters have seen for themselves that City streets and roadways are in
need of attention, will go a long way toward securing the requisite voter support for the
funding mechanism (meaning an increase in the local Fuel Tax) that proved to be most
desirable in the present study…so long as the amount of increase does NOT exceed their
collective THRESHOLD of willingness to pay.
Section 4.0
Summary Conclusion
Clearly, the findings from the present scientific voter survey of Springfield voters
have proven positive and instructive. This effort amounts to placing a mirror up to the
local electorate and asking local voters for their direction by employing the appropriate
scientific tools in the appropriate fashion.
Elected Officials in Springfield are…Completely Trustworthy
13
37 32
11 5 20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent10010000000000000000000000000
50%Agree
16%Disagree
Strongly Somewhat No Somewhat Strongly RefAgree Opinion Disagree
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 10
Needs Analysis and Feasibility Study Executive Summary for Council, 2016
FINAL REPORT, Strategy Research Institute 8 | Page
Given that the proposed funding Measure is structured in a fashion that MIRRORS
the collective desires and expectations of these critical constituents AND given that
Springfield voters are made aware of the City’s plans for addressing these critical
needs…there is every reason to believe that such a funding Measure will prove
successful.
It has been a pleasure to partner with the City of Springfield, Oregon, on this
important project. Should you wish additional input regarding the interpretation of the
findings from the present scientific survey of Springfield voters, please know that we are
telephone close and that we monitor our e-mails quite closely.
The present report concludes with three (3) Addenda.
Addendum A contains a set of graphs through which the empirical findings from
the present scientific survey of Springfield voters are presented in a user-friendly
fashion.
Addendum B contains a copy of the Research Instrument (questionnaire)
showing percentages for each question asked in the telephone survey.
Addendum C is the Research Design and Methodology employed in the present
scientific survey.
We’ve also provided a Book of Crosstabs where you can find voluminous
breakouts such as support by age, income, education, and other demographics, plus a
host of other dimensions that may be of interest, going forward.
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 10
2ND5TH5
MAINA
Q
5TH42ND28THMARCOLACAMP
C
R
E
E
K
DAISY
JASPER
G
CENTENNIAL
EMILL
OLYMPIC
58THFRANKLIN10THBOB STRAUBHARLOWGATEWAY
32ND69TH14TH30THMCVAYTHURSTON
HAYDEN BRIDGE
VIRGINIA 48TH35THMCKENZIE19THPIONEER
PARKWAY
EAST
COMMERCIAL
GLENWOOD52NDHIGH BANKS
CHAD
MT VERNONGARDENRIVERBENDMARTIN LUTHER KING JRBELTLINE
GAME FARM
MOHAWKINTERNATIONAL
1
8
TH
57THMAINGAM
E
F
A
RM
FRANKLIN
JASPER 58TH30
T
H
A
G
June 10, 201600.5 10.25 Mi.
There are no warranties that accompany this product. Usersassume all responsibility for any loss or damage arising from any error, omission, or positional inaccuracy of this product.
Scenario: 2 / gallonSpringfield, OR
126
5
Projects
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
¢
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 1
2ND5THMAINA
Q
5TH42ND28THMARCOLACAMP
C
R
E
E
K
DAISY
J
A
S
P
E
R
G
CENTENNIAL
EMILL
OLYMPIC
58THFRANKLIN10THBOB STRAUBGATEWAYHARLOW
32ND69TH14TH30THTHURSTON
HAYDEN BRIDGE
MCVAYVIRGINIA 48TH35THMCKENZIE19THPIONEER
PARKWAY
EAST
COMMERCIAL
GLENWOOD52NDHIGH BANKS
MT VERNONGARDENRIVERBENDCHADMARTIN LUTHER KING JRBELTLINE
GAME FARM
MOHAWKINTERNATIONAL
1
8TH
57THMAINGAM
E
F
A
RM
FRANKLIN 58THJASPER
30T
H
A
G
June 10, 201600.5 10.25 Mi.
There are no warranties that accompany this product. Usersassume all responsibility for any loss or damage arising from any error, omission, or positional inaccuracy of this product.
Scenario: 3 / gallonSpringfield, OR
126
5
ProjectsYear 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
¢
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 1
Street NameFrom Street NameTo Street Name Sq. YardsAction to TakePossible CostMARCOLA RD19TH STCITY LIMITS AT BRIDGE 49828 OVERLAY$1,245,000THURSTON RD58TH ST69TH ST26152 OVERLAY$1,200,000CENTENNIAL BLVDPIONEER PARKWAY WEST MOHAWK BLVD26611 OVERLAY$1,000,000MOHAWK BLVDG ST18TH ST33594 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$895,00028TH STMAIN STMARCOLA RD29200 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$782,000JASPER RDS 32ND STS 42ND ST24465 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$606,000HIGH BANKS RD52ND ST58TH ST17402 OVERLAY$473,00014TH STMAIN STG ST12374 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$307,000S 32ND STBOOTH KELLY RDJASPER RD6798 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$169,00042ND STEUGENE-SPRINGFIELD HWY MARCOLA RD6656 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$165,000S 42ND STMT VERNON RDJASPER RD5184 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$129,00058TH STTHURSTON RDHIGH BANKS RD3909 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$97,000HIGH PRIORITY MINOR ARTERIAL $7,068,00005TH STCENTENNIAL BLVDHAYDEN BRIDGE PL22523 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$557,45542ND STMAIN STINDUSTRIAL AVE21414 OVERLAY$591,81252ND STEUGENE-SPRINGFIELD HWY HIGH BANKS RD1797 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$44,468CENTENNIAL BLVDI-5PIONEER PARKWAY WEST 33116 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$819,621CENTENNIAL BLVDMOHAWK BLVD28TH ST17336 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$429,077COMMERCIAL AVE41ST ST42ND ST4365 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$108,034GATEWAY STINTERNATIONAL WAYI-53780 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$93,555OLYMPIC STMOHAWK BLVD28TH ST22252 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$550,737OLYMPIC ST28TH ST42ND ST23365 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$578,284PIONEER PARKWAY EAST Q STHAYDEN BRIDGE WAY13265 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$328,309PIONEER PARKWAY WEST W Q STHAYDEN BRIDGE WAY10833 THIN LIFT OVERLAY$268,114$4,369,465TOTALMINOR/ARTERIALBACKLOG $11,437,465HIGH PRIORITY-Asphalt streetsCity of Springfield Development and Public Works Department INFOR Infrastructure Management SystemStreet Survey Minor Arterials -BACKLOGAttachment 5, Page 1 of 3
Street Name From Street Name To Street Name Sq. Yards Action to Take Possible Cost
QST 05THST 19THST 29643 THINLIFT OVERLAY $750,676
EST 14THST 28THST 19796 OVERLAY $554,119
A ST 05TH ST 10TH ST 8947 RECONSTRUCT $500,000
LAURAST WQST SCOTTSGLENDR 8979 OVERLAY $500,000
MILLST MAINST WCENTENNIALBLVD 17227 OVERLAY $494,477
GST 10THST 21STST 18300 THINLIFT OVERLAY $452,914
QST LAURAST 05THST 13694 OVERLAY $411,550
EST 05THST 14THST 15804 THINLIFT OVERLAY $391,144
FAIRVIEWDR MILL ST FAIRHAVENST 12868 OVERLAY $352,334
58TH ST MAIN ST THURSTON RD 12678 OVERLAY $348,691
18TH ST OLYMPIC ST MOHAWK BLVD 7348 OVERLAY $300,000
21STST MAINST DST 4836 OVERLAY $300,000
36THST MAINST COMMERCIALAVE 9331 OVERLAY $286,372
66THST MAINST THURSTONRD 10748 THINLIFT OVERLAY $274,403
MILLST WCENTENNIALBLVD FAIRVIEW DR 4568 OVERLAY $250,000
EST MILLST 05THST 7051 OVERLAY $208,122
GST 21STST 28THST 6720 OVERLAY $206,237
GST 05THST 10THST 6857 OVERLAY $202,622
21STST JST OLYMPICST 7311 THINLIFT OVERLAY $187,719
52NDST G ST EUGENESPRINGFIELD HWY 3542 OVERLAY $108,711
HIGHPRIORITY BACKLOG $7,080,089
DAISYST S48THST BOBSTRAUBPARKWAY 18805 THINLIFT OVERLAY $480,332
10THST S A ST CENTENNIALBLVD 17097 THINLIFT OVERLAY $431,036
07THST S AST CENTENNIALBLVD 15790 OVERLAY $423,015
WDST MILLST ASPENST 14612 THINLIFT OVERLAY $371,109
05THST MAINST CENTENNIALBLVD 14667 THINLIFT OVERLAY $363,000
RAINBOWDR WDST WCENTENNIALBLVD 11760 THINLIFT OVERLAY $291,060
S67THST MAINST IVYST 10902 THINLIFT OVERLAY $279,833
OAKDALEAVE PHEASANTBLVD GATEWAY ST 10528 THINLIFT OVERLAY $260,579
MTVERNONRD S 57THPL S59THST 9523 THINLIFT OVERLAY $235,703
S58THST MAINST DAISYST 9411 THINLIFT OVERLAY $232,925
DAISYST S42NDST S46THST 8726 THINLIFT OVERLAY $215,974
21ST ST D ST J ST 7580 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $187,616
S02NDST S AST SEST 7556 THINLIFT OVERLAY $187,003
31ST ST MARCOLA RD V ST 7476 THIN LIFT OVERLAY $185,031
E22NDAVE GLENWOODBLVD HENDERSON AVE 4545 OVERLAY $139,471
S05THST MAINST SAST 885 RECONSTRUCT $138,255
FST 52NDST 54THST 4733 OVERLAY $138,158
ASPENST OKSANNAST KELLOGGRD 1757 THINLIFT OVERLAY $43,489
S05THST S AST SBST 1696 THINLIFT OVERLAY $41,976
S57THST GLACIER DR RIDGECT 1695 THINLIFT OVERLAY $41,949
GAMEFARMRD GATEWAYST WESTI5 1320 OVERLAY $40,511
DAISYST BOB STRAUBPARKWAY S 58THST 1409 THINLIFT OVERLAY $34,881
SMILL ST MAINST SAST 748 THINLIFT OVERLAY $18,519
HENDERSONAVE E 21STAVE E22NDAVE 630 THINLIFT OVERLAY $15,593
$4,797,014
TOTALCOLLECTOR BACKLOG $11,877,103
HIGH PRIORITY-Asphalt streets
City of Springfield Development and Public Works Department
INFOR Infrastructure Management System
Street Survey Collector Streets-BACKLOG
Attachment 5, Page 2 of 3
StreetName FromStreetName ToStreet Name Sq.Yards SCI Value PossibleCost
Ward1
NORTH CLOVERLEAF LP NORTH CLOVERLEAF LP OAKDALE AVE 2822 18.71 $10,667
BEVERLY ST HARLOW RD BEVERLY ST 1414 16.63 $5,346
BEVERLY ST DARLENE AVE HARLOW RD 1569 29.70 $5,932
V ST 02ND ST 05TH ST 2424 29.70 $9,162
SHADYLANE DR T ST U ST 1753 29.70 $6,628
SHADYLANE DR V ST WOODLANE DR 1027 29.70 $3,881
U ST SHADYLANE DR U ST 2510 29.22 $9,489
GROVEDALE DR WOODLANE DR GROVEDALE DR 395 19.60 $1,492
WOODLANE DR SHADYLANE DR GROVEDALE DR 3022 22.90 $11,424
SHADYLANE DR WOODLANE DR GREENVALE DR 726 26.40 $2,744
$66,764
Ward2RIVERVIEW BLVD CITY VIEW BLVD LEVEL LN 1132 16.83 $4,281
RIVERVIEW BLVD W D ST CITY VIEW BLVD 688 19.60 $2,599
RIVERVIEW BLVD SUMMIT BLVD RIVERVIEW BLVD 626 23.00 $2,365
SUMMIT BLVD SUNSET DR CREST LN 806 23.33 $3,046
LEVEL LN RIVERVIEW BLVD CITY VIEW BLVD 1733 26.63 $6,552
CITY VIEW BLVD LEVEL LN CREST LN 405 29.55 $1,532
SUNSET DR SUMMIT BLVD WALLACE LN 3965 29.70 $14,987
RIVERVIEW BLVD LEVEL LN SUMMIT BLVD 762 29.93 $2,881
SUMMIT BLVD RIVERVIEW BLVD SUNSET DR 482 26.63 $1,823
$40,066
Ward3
OLYMPIC ST 12TH ST MARKET ST 3880 29.60 $14,666
PLEASANT ST 12TH ST MARKET ST 3680 29.60 $13,910
M ST 10TH ST 11TH ST 1232 26.30 $4,657
M ST 13TH ST MARKET ST 2605 29.60 $9,848
M ST 11TH ST 12TH ST 1283 26.63 $4,848
L ST 12TH ST 13TH ST 1587 26.63 $5,998
$53,928
Ward4
CHEROKEE DR S 38TH ST HAZELNUT LN 825 26.30 $3,118
S 37TH ST CHEROKEE DR DOUGLAS DR 889 25.54 $3,362
S 37TH ST S REDWOOD DR JASPER RD 3201 26.30 $12,100
CHEROKEE DR S 37TH ST S 38TH ST 2754 26.63 $10,410
A ST 22ND ST 23RD ST 1381 26.40 $5,221
23RD ST MAIN ST A ST 1159 29.70 $4,382
24TH ST A ST D ST 3505 29.70 $13,250
$51,844
Ward5
S 44TH ST ASTER ST S 43RD PL 880 19.80 $3,326
S 44TH ST S 43RD PL CAMELLIA ST 1070 26.40 $4,045
S 44TH ST CAMELLIA ST DAISY ST 867 26.40 $3,276
S 43RD PL S 44TH ST DAISY ST 2817 16.50 $10,647
S 50TH PL MAIN ST BLUEBELLE WAY 2591 25.91 $9,793
FORSYTHIA DR S 51ST PL S 53RD ST 2833 29.70 $10,710
$41,797
Ward6
G ST 58TH ST 60TH ST 3967 26.40 $14,994
E ST 58TH ST 60TH ST 3464 26.96 $13,093
GLACIER DR S 68TH ST S 69TH ST 2677 29.93 $10,120
GLACIER DR GLACIER DR S 70TH ST 1867 28.61 $7,056
S 71ST ST BLUEBELLE WAY S E ST 1847 23.00 $6,980
S 71ST ST ASTER ST BLUEBELLE WAY 1520 29.93 $5,746
$57,989
HIGHPRIORITY Crack Seal andSlurrySeal projectsbyWard
City of Springfield Development and Public Works Department
INFOR Infrastructure Management System
Street Survey Local Streets-BACKLOG
Attachment 5, Page 3 of 3