HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02 Street Assets Unfunded Liability AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/25/2018
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Tom Boyatt, DPW Interim Director
Staff Phone No: 541-744-3373
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 ASSETS UNDFUNDED LIABILITY
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review the results of the recent survey of registered voters in Springfield which
tested awareness of the streets conditions problem, and public support to address
the problem.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The decline in the condition of the City’s street infrastructure continues to
accelerate since 2007, when the City effectively discontinued its preservation program. Between 2013 and 2016 the unfunded backlog of preservation and
reconstruction grew from $22 million to $30 million. Staff is currently completing
an asset conditions inventory for 2018, which must be reported to the State prior to February 2019, and anticipates the unfunded liability is now $35million, and could
be as high as $40 million.
ATTACHMENTS: ATT1: Council Briefing Memo ATT2: Survey Executive Summary, Data Analysis and Conclusions
ATT3: Draft Project List ATT4: Draft Ballot Language ATT5: Complete Survey Results Document
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT:
At the May 14, 2018 Council work session on the topic, Council directed staff to conduct a scientific survey of Springfield voters to assess the public’s willingness
to support additional revenue to repair Springfield streets. Advanced Market
Research Inc. conducted the survey and has provided results to the City. Staff will present the survey results and conclusions to Council and seek guidance on next
steps.
Draft ballot title language and a draft project list are included for Council review as
Attachments 3 and 4, should Council choose to place a funding measure on the November 2018 general election ballot. Based on Council direction, staff is prepared to provide final ballot language and proposed project list at a special
regular session on July 2, 2018. Over the summer staff would coordinate with County Elections to meet deadlines, prepare the explanatory statement for the
voter’s pamphlet, and develop informational materials for the funding measure.
Should Council desire to bring a funding measure before the voters at the
November general election, all Final ballot language will be due to the Lane County
Elections Official no later than September 6, 2018.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 6/25/2018
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Tom Boyatt, Interim DPW Director BRIEFING
Subject: Street Assets Unfunded Liability MEMORANDUM
ISSUE:
The decline in the condition of the City’s street infrastructure continues to accelerate since 2007, when the City effectively discontinued its preservation program. Between 2013 and 2016 the unfunded backlog of preservation and reconstruction grew from $22 million to $30 million.
Staff is currently completing an asset conditions inventory for 2018, which must be reported to the State prior to February 2019, and anticipates the unfunded liability is now $35million, and
could be as high as $40 million.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
BACKGROUND:
For the past 18 years the City Council has been tracking revenue reductions combined with
increasing costs and a growing system in the City’s street fund. In 2001, revenues the City received from Lane County (Secure Rural Schools federal dollars) began to decline. In 2003 the
City passed a 3 cent local option gas tax to offset declining federal revenues and increasing
costs. In 2007 the County ended payments to cities. In 2009 the City put a 2 cent local option gas tax increase on the ballot and that measure did not pass. In 2015 Lane County’s vehicle
registration fee proposal also failed to pass. In 2016 the voters declined to approve the City’s 3 cent local option increase.
In 2008 the City estimated the unfunded street system preservation and rehabilitation annual
funding gap at $1.6 million per year. By 2014 that annual unfunded cost had grown to $4.5 million per year looking forward, with a cost to bring the system back to fair or better condition
of about $25 million. Today staff estimates the repair backlog at $35 - $40 million and an annual unmet need of approximately $5 million to keep the system in a state of good repair into the future.
SURVEY OF REGISTERED VOTERS:
At the May 14, 2018 Council work session on the topic, Council directed staff to conduct a
scientific survey of Springfield voters to assess the public’s willingness to support additional revenue to fix Springfield streets. Advanced Marketing Research Inc. conducted the survey
between May 18 and June 4, 2018. The Executive Summary, Data Analysis and Conclusions
have been broken out and included as Attachment 2, and the complete Survey Report is Attachment 5 to the Agenda Item Summary. At the work session Staff will review the survey
summary with Council.
Based on survey results, Advanced Marketing Research concludes that Springfield voters could
support a five year, $10 million capital bond for street repair where money collected would be
dedicated to only street repair and a list of projects and costs is provided. Additional information that influences a positive decision includes information that without a bond measure
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM 6/21/2018 Page 2
there would be no street repair program; information about the extent of Springfield streets being in poor condition; and, that the backlog of needed repairs is likely to increase by $5 million per
year if nothing is done. Additionally it was found that a 3 cent gas tax increase is unlikely to
pass.
DRAFT PROJECT LIST:
Providing the voters with a project list identifying roadways to be repaired with bond funds and the estimated costs of those projects is information that voters indicate will make them more
inclined to support a bond measure. Attachment 3 is a project list developed by staff for Council
consideration.
In looking at projects several factors were considered. First, it would be positive to get to work fixing streets as soon as practical after voter approval to demonstrate the City’s commitment and follow through to address the problem.
Another consideration in selecting highest priority projects relates to the interplay between the legal requirements for selling bonds, using the proceeds to deliver projects, and the types of
projects selected for repair. A five year bond issue, for example, will require that 85% of dollars are spent by the end of three years after the bond sale.
In order to meet this legal test and get work done in the community as quickly as possible after the general election, staff proposes a two phase approach to project delivery, which can match
up with two separate bond sales to provide the time necessary to get this work done.
In the first phase, the more simple pavement overlay projects would be pursued along with
design work for more complex projects. Pavement overlay projects are vital street repair work
which may involve spot-specific roadbed base repair, and may call for the grinding off of the existing pavement surface to be replaced with new asphalt (aka Grind/Inlay).
The less complicated pavement overlay projects can be more quickly designed and developed for construction, and should generate a fair number of bids, even in a busy construction
environment. A key advantage to this type of work is that the dollar stretches further and a greater number of lane miles can be repaired more quickly. Staff believes that this approach would show good faith with the voters and position the City for a successful outcome.
While phase one repair is being constructed in 2019 and 2020, staff would have the time needed
to scope and engineer the more complicated projects that require higher levels of roadbed base
reconstruction, ADA ramp reconstruction or traffic control and reroute planning, could then be bid in the delivery out years, 2021 - 2024.
Further, staff sees value in coordinating project delivery in such a way that road work on open projects would avoid construction impacts to recently completed projects.
The list of pavement repair projects for Council consideration (ATT 3) proposes projects in line with bond revenue, and also includes additional projects below the funding “cut line” for
Council’s review. Projects below the cut line could be follow-on priorities should programmed
work come in below estimate, or additional revenue be available through an advantageous bond sale. Depending on the number of projects ultimately chosen, staff believes it will be effective
to include either examples of the specific project list directly in the ballot title, or the complete list if that fits within the word count limitations of the Summary section.
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 4
MEMORANDUM 6/21/2018 Page 3
In addition, staff recommends including the complete list in the resolution referring a bond to voters to be as transparent as possible with the voters. Council is currently scheduled to make
the final decisions about referring a general obligation bond to the voters at the special regular
session scheduled for July 2, 2018. That being said, any decisions or direction Council can provide at the June 25th work session with respect to the project list will be a benefit to meeting
the related ballot referral deadlines.
BOND SALE AND FINANCING:
There are a number of levers and drivers which come in to play in assessing what will be the
most cost effective approach to using voter approved revenue to deliver street repairs. Depending on the look ahead at where interest rates may go, and the project list to be delivered,
it may make sense to sell the bonds in two phases to match the project delivery approach. Selling a lesser dollar amount first and then selling the balance several years later will provide the most flexibility in meeting project delivery deadlines; however, if interest rates are expected
to increase substantially then locking in the lower rate with the first sale of the total bond amount may make the most sense.
Another area where staff can generate efficiencies is by getting started on the design and construction of the first year of projects after voter approval but before the tax levy is collected.
The most efficient way to accomplish this would be for Council to approve a Reimbursement
Resolution after a successful election outcome to authorize inter-fund borrowing. For example, the sewer fund could lend dollars to the street fund for project design and development, and then
have those funds repaid from bond proceeds, so long as a valid Reimbursement Resolution is in
place.
With Council direction to move forward, the Finance Department would work with the City’s
financial advisors and bond counsel to assess the risks and benefits of the various financing methods and would pursue the one that best mitigates risk and is expected to produce the highest
benefit/cost to the community.
DEBT SCHEDULES AND COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS:
After the May 14, 2018 Council work session, staff coordinated with the City’s financial advisors to run debt schedules for the potential bond scenario. Being on a very tight time line, staff estimated the annual cost to the owner of the average home for the $10 million bond over 5
years so the survey of voters could be completed on the necessary time frame. That estimated annual dollar amount was surveyed at $88.
Once the financial advisors were able to complete the in-depth debt schedules, they arrived at two different numbers that essentially bookend the polled question of $88/year. The $10m/5
years schedule came out at $94/year and the $10m/7 year schedule came out at $70/year. On the
one hand, polling did not test $94/year so it is uncertain if this modest difference would cause voters to lean one way or the other. On the other hand, while $70/year is a lesser amount it does
add two years to the equation which means the cost to property owners extends two more years.
Before the work session on June 25, 2018 staff will work with the financial advisors to see if
there is an alternative, i.e. $9m over 5 years, which lands as close as possible to the polled
question of $88/year and bring that information to Council for consideration.
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 4
MEMORANDUM 6/21/2018 Page 4
NEXT STEPS:
Council is expected to provide staff direction at the work session on whether or not to pursue a
general obligation bond for street repair; on bond amount and term; on the proposed draft ballot
language; and on the proposed draft bond project list. Staff will make any necessary changes to materials and bring those back to Council during special regular session on July 2, 2018 along
with a Resolution referring the question to Springfield voters.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide staff direction on pursuing a General Obligation Bond for needed street repairs in Springfield.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 4
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The City of Springfield, faced with a street repair backlog in excess of $35 million, contracted with Advanced Marketing Research in order to draw insights about voter behavior surrounding a 2018 street repair bond measure, specifically:
Highest dollar amount most likely to succeed
Influence of information regarding impact to services
Likelihood of passing a gas tax for street maintenance and preservation
400 registered voters living within Springfield city limits who had voted at least once in the last four major elections were contacted by telephone and completed the survey.
Key Findings
Voters rate Springfield streets to be in “good” condition.
Neighborhood streets are rated 3.3 on a scale of one to five, where one is poor
and five is excellent.
Non-residential streets are rated 3.1 on the same scale.
Voters feel potholes warrant immediate correction, but cracks in the street can
wait.
83% feel potholes warrant immediate correction.
42% feel cracks warrant immediate correction, and 49% feel correction can be delayed.
Support is higher for the $10 million bond.
54.5% would likely vote yes for a $10 million bond that would cost the average
homeowner $88 per year. (38% “definitely yes” plus half of 24% “probably yes”
plus half of 9% “lean yes.”
41.5% would likely vote yes for a $15 million bond that would cost the average homeowner $133 per year. (26% “definitely yes” plus half of 24% “probably yes”
plus half of 7% “lean yes.”
Information makes a difference.
Knowing that all money collected would be dedicated to street repair would make 75% (much or somewhat) more likely to support a ballot measure.
Knowing that lists of projects to be done and their costs would be made public
would make 72% (much or somewhat) more likely to support a ballot measure.
Knowing that half of Springfield’s streets are in poor condition would make 57%
(much or somewhat) more likely to support a ballot measure.
Knowing that without the bond measure there will be no street repair program would make 55% (much or somewhat) more likely to support a ballot measure.
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 17
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Key Findings
Information makes a difference (continued)
Knowing that the backlog of needed street repairs increases by $5 million each
year would make 49% (much or somewhat) more likely to support a ballot
measure.
Informed support is high enough to pass the $10 million measure.
After hearing the information pieces, 59% would likely vote for the $10 million
bond (combining the “definitely yes” with half of the “probably yes” and half of the
“lean yes.”)
After hearing the information pieces, 46.5% would likely vote for the $15 million
bond (combining the “definitely yes” with half of the “probably yes” and half of the
“lean yes.”)
Three cent gas tax likely will not pass.
44.5% would likely vote yes for a three cent gas tax for ongoing street
maintenance, not enough support to pass the measure. (33% “definitely yes” plus
half of 17% “probably yes” plus half of 6% “lean yes.”
Conclusions
There is support for a $10 million street repair bond measure, and information plays a
role. There is not support for a gas tax, or for a $15 million bond measure.
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 17
11
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Rating of Springfield Streets (Q2-Q3)
Springfield voters rated the general condition of streets in their residential neighborhood
a 3.3 on a scale of one to five, while they rated the condition of streets in non-residential
areas of Springfield a 3.1.
Demographic Differences
Those who voted only once out of the last four elections were more likely than others to
feel the streets in their residential neighborhood are “excellent.” Ward Five residents are
more likely than others to rate their residential streets “poor.”
25 to 34 year-olds are more likely than others to rate non-residential streets of Springfield
“excellent.”
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 17
12
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Correction Warranted (Q4-Q5)
83% of voters feel potholes warrant immediate correction, while only 42% feel cracks in
the street warrant immediate correction.
Demographic Differences
Those who voted four out of the last four elections are more likely than others to feel
potholes warrant “immediate” correction, but more likely than others to feel cracks in the
street warrant “immediate” correction. Those 60 and over are also more likely than others
to feel cracks in the street warrant “immediate” correction. Ward Three residents are more
likely than others to feel cracks in the street warrant “delayed” correction.
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 17
13
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Level of Support for $15 Million Bond (Q6)
Respondents were told that Springfield is currently facing a backlog of over $35 million in
needed street repairs, and asked if they would support a five-year $15 million bond
costing the average homeowner $133 per year. 26% of voters say if the election were held today, they would definitely vote yes to support the new measure. An additional 24%
would probably vote yes, and 7% lean toward voting yes. 6% are undecided. 19% are
adamantly opposed, 14% probably opposed, and 5% leaning toward opposed.
Combining the 26% who would “definitely” vote yes with half of the 24% who would
“probably” vote yes, plus half of the 7% who “lean” toward voting yes, yields 41.5% who
would likely vote to support the measure.
The mean response is 4.5 on a seven-point scale, where one is “definitely no,” and seven
is “definitely yes.”
Demographic Differences
Ward Two residents are more likely than others to strongly support a $15 million bond.
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 17
14
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Level of Support for $10 Million Bond (Q7)
Respondents were told that a $10 million bond would cost the average homeowner $88
per year. 38% of voters say if the election were held today, they would definitely vote yes
to support a $10 million bond measure. An additional 24% would probably vote yes, and 9% lean toward voting yes. 3% are undecided. 16% are adamantly opposed, 8% probably
opposed, and 3% lean toward opposed.
Combining the 38% who would “definitely” vote yes with half of the 24% who would
“probably” vote yes, plus half of the 9% who “lean” toward voting yes, yields 54.5% who would likely vote to support the measure.
The mean response is 5.0 on a seven-point scale, where one is “definitely no,” and seven
is “definitely yes.”
Demographic Differences
Females are more likely than males to strongly support a $10 million bond.
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 17
15
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Level of Support at Various Amounts (Q6-Q7)
As the levy amount decreases, and with it the level of services, the proportion “definitely”
voting yes increases, from 26% at the highest dollar amount to 38% at the lowest dollar
amount.
As the levy amount decreases, opposition at all levels (“definitely,” “probably,” and
“leaning”) decreases.
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 17
16
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Argument: Half of Streets in Poor Condition (Q8)
Respondents were asked if they would be more likely to support or oppose the measure
if they knew that half of Springfield’s streets are in poor condition. 36% said this
information would make them “much more likely to support” the measure, while 21% said
they would be “somewhat more likely to support” the measure. 42% said the information
would make no difference.
The mean response is 3.9 on a five-point scale, where one is “much more likely to
oppose,” and five is “much more likely to support.”
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 17
17
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Argument: Backlog Increases Each Year (Q9)
Respondents were asked if they would be more likely to support or oppose the measure
if they knew that the backlog of needed repairs increases by approximately five million
dollars each year. 26% said this information would make them “much more likely to support” the measure, while 23% said they would be “somewhat more likely to support”
the measure. 47% said the information would make no difference.
The mean response is 3.7 on a five-point scale, where one is “much more likely to
oppose,” and five is “much more likely to support.”
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 17
18
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Argument: All Money Would Be Dedicated to Street Repair (Q10)
Respondents were asked if they would be more likely to support or oppose the measure
if they knew that all of the money collected would be dedicated to street repair. 56% said
this information would make them “much more likely to support” the measure, while 19%
said they would be “somewhat more likely to support” the measure. 24% said the
information would make no difference.
The mean response is 4.3 on a five-point scale, where one is “much more likely to
oppose,” and five is “much more likely to support.”
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 17
19
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Argument: Projects and Costs Would Be Published (Q11)
Respondents were asked if they would be more likely to support or oppose the measure
if they could see the list of projects to be done, and their cost. 46% said this information
would make them “much more likely to support” the measure, while 26% said they would
be “somewhat more likely to support” the measure. 26% said the information would make
no difference.
The mean response is 4.2 on a five-point scale, where one is “much more likely to
oppose,” and five is “much more likely to support.”
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 17
20
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Argument: There is No Street Repair Program (Q12)
Respondents were asked if they would be more likely to support or oppose the measure
if they knew that without the measure, Springfield has no dedicated street repair program.
30% said this information would make them “much more likely to support” the measure,
while 25% said they would be “somewhat more likely to support” the measure. 40% said
the information would make no difference.
The mean response is 3.8 on a five-point scale, where one is “much more likely to
oppose,” and five is “much more likely to support.”
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 17
21
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Effect of Arguments (Q8-Q12)
The most effective argument for voting for a street measure is that all money collected
would be dedicated to street repair. 75% would be “much more” or “somewhat more” likely
to support the bond measure after hearing this argument. Of nearly equal effectiveness is the information that lists of projects to be done, and their costs would be made public.
This information would cause 72% to be “much more” or “somewhat more” likely to
support the bond measure. 57% would be positively swayed by the information that half
of Springfield’s streets are in poor condition. 55% would be positively swayed by the
information that without the bond measure, Springfield has no dedicated street repair program. 49% would be positively swayed by the information that the backlog of needed
street repairs increases by approximately $5 million each year.
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 17
22
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Informed Support: $15 Million Bond (Q13)
After hearing information regarding the consequences of not passing a bond measure,
34% would “definitely” support the $15 million measure, compared with 26% before
hearing the information. 19% would “probably” support the measure, compared with 24% before the information.
Combining the 34% who would “definitely” vote yes with half of the 19% who would
“probably” vote yes, plus half of the 6% who would “lean” toward voting yes, yields 46.5%
who would likely vote to support the measure, if they are informed.
Attachment 2, Page 14 of 17
23
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Informed Support: $10 Million Bond (Q14)
After hearing information regarding the consequences of not passing a bond measure,
44% would “definitely” support the $10 million measure, compared with 38% before
hearing the information. 23% would “probably” support the measure, compared with 24% before the information.
Combining the 44% who would “definitely” vote yes with half of the 23% who would
“probably” vote yes, plus half of the 7% who would “lean” toward voting yes, yields 59%
who would likely vote to support the measure, if they are informed.
Demographic Differences
Ward Two residents are more likely than others to strongly support a $10 million bond.
Attachment 2, Page 15 of 17
24
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Support for 3 Cent Gas Tax (Q15)
Voters were told that for purposes of ongoing street maintenance and maximizing the life
of the streets, a three cent per gallon increase in the gas tax would raise $1.1 million per
year. Asked if they would support or oppose a three cent gas tax, 33% would “definitely” vote yes, 17% would “probably” vote yes, and 6% would lean toward voting yes. 5% are
undecided. 28% are adamantly opposed, 8% probably opposed, and 3% leaning toward
opposed.
Combining the 33% who would “definitely” vote yes with half of the 17% who would
“probably” vote yes, plus half of the 6% who “lean” toward voting yes, yields 44.5% who
would likely vote to support the gas tax measure.
The mean response is 4.4 on a seven-point scale, where one is “definitely no,” and seven
is “definitely yes.”
Attachment 2, Page 16 of 17
26
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions
There is voter support for a $10 million street repair bond measure, and not for a $15
million measure. There is insufficient support for a three cent street maintenance gas tax
measure. Information will assist the $10 million measure passing, particularly knowing
that all the money collected will be dedicated to street repair, and being able to see a list of projects to be done along with associated costs.
Information not collected in the survey, but which was anecdotally picked up by all of the
interviewers was the sentiment that the City of Springfield has already been given money
for street maintenance, and the question of where has that money gone. There is the feeling expressed by many that this has already been paid for, although some went on to
approve the measure anyway. If this is a misconception, perhaps the City can correct it
through an information campaign.
Attachment 2, Page 17 of 17
ProjectProjectDescriptionStart EndLength(ft) EstimateOlympicSt.Pavementpreservation,2"overlaybetween21stand28th,2"millwith4"overlaybetweenMohawkand21st.ModerateADAandsignalupgradesrequired,andminimalspotbaserepairrequired.MohawkBlvd. 28thSt.3,7001,650,000$CentennialBlvd. Pavementpreservation,2"overlaywithminimalpavementmilling.MinimalADAandsignalupgradesrequired.AspenSt.PrescottSt.2,600700,000$CommercialSt. Pavementpreservation,2"overlaywithminimalpavementmilling.42ndSt. 450'West45085,000$42ndStPavementpreservation,2"overlaywithminimalpavementmilling.ModerateADAandminimalsignalupgradesrequired.Railroadpermitrequired.MainSt. IPEntrance2,750855,000$ThurstonRd.Pavementpreservation,2"pavementmillwith4"pavementoverlay.ExtensiveADAupgradesrequiredandmoderatespotbaserepairs.58thSt.69thSt.5,8002,500,000$HighBanksRd./58thSt. Pavementpreservation,2"pavementmillwith4"pavementoverlay.ExtensiveADAupgradesrequiredandmoderatespotbaserepairs.52ndSt. ThurstonRd. 4,4001,700,000$14thSt.Pavementpreservation,2"overlaywithminimalpavementmilling.ModerateADAandminimalsignalupgradesrequired.MainSt.ESt.ASt.GSt.1,250305,000$MohawkBlvdPavementpreservation,2"overlaywithminimalpavementmilling.ExtensiveADAandsignalupgradesrequired.Medianreconstructiontobeconsidered.GSt. OR1263,8002,100,000$Subtotal 9,895,000$MarcolaRd.Pavementpreservation,2"pavementmillwith4"pavementoverlay.19thSt. CityLimits9,5003,300,000$GatewaySt.Pavementpreservation,2"pavementmillwith4"pavementoverlay.MinimalADAupgradesrequiredandminimalspotbaserepairs.Int'lWay CityLimits820360,000$32nd/JasperPavementpreservation,2"overlaywithminimalpavementmilling.ModerateADAsignalupgradesrequiredandminimalspotbaserepairs.Railroadpermitmayberequired.Railroad 42ndSt.6,3501,660,000$Subtotal 5,320,000$GrandTotal 15,215,000$PotentialStreetBondProjectList2018Attachment 3, Page 1 of 1
Springfield Street Repair GO Bond, 2018
Caption (10 words)
Authorizes general obligation Bonds to fix Springfield streets.
Question (20 words)
Shall City of Springfield issue $10,000,000 in general obligation bonds to fix deteriorating city streets?
If the bonds are approved, they will be payable from taxes on property or property ownership that are
not subject to the limits of sections 11 and 11b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution.
Summary (175 words)
If this measure is approved, City will use bond proceeds to fix Springfield streets. Bond proceeds will
only be used to fix existing streets and pay bond issuance costs. The listed streets are the City’s highest
priority for fixing with bond proceeds. See Springfield Resolution XXXX for a full list of streets that could
be fixed using bond proceeds.
Olympic St – Mohawk Blvd. to 28th St.
Centennial Blvd – Aspen St. to Prescott St.
Commercial St – 42nd St. west 450 feet
42nd St – Main St. to IP Entrance
Thurston Road – 58th St. to 69th St.
Highbanks Rd/58th St – 52nd St. to Thurston Rd.
14th St – Main St. to A St. and E St. to G St.
Mohawk Blvd – G St. to OR126
The City will publish periodic reports to document completed bond projects.
Bonds would be repaid from property taxes beginning in 2019 for a period not to exceed 5 years. The
estimated rate is $0.XX per $1000 of assessed value, or about $XX per year for the average Springfield
homeowner.
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 1
SURVEY OF REGISTERED VOTERS
CONDUCTED FOR
THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
May, 2018
P.O. Box 5244 · Eugene, OR 97405 · Phone/Fax 541-345-6600 · www.advancedmarketingresearch.com
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 28
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY …………………………………………. 3
IMPLEMENTATION …………………………………………. 5
Background …………………………………………………. 5
Purpose of the Study …………………………………. 5
Methodology …………………………………………………. 5 Quotas Observed …………………………………………. 6 Response Rate …………………………………………. 6
Tests for Differences Between Proportions …………. 7
Notes on Chi Square …………………………………. 7
Bound on Error …………………………………………. 8 Differences Between Percentage Points …………………. 9
ANALYSIS OF DATA …………………………………………. 10
Rating of Springfield Streets …………………………. 11 Correction Warranted …………………………………. 12 Level of Support for $15 Million Bond …………………. 13
Level of Support for $10 Million Bond …………………. 14
Level of Support at Various Amounts …………………. 15
Argument: Half of Streets in Poor Condition …………. 16 Argument: Backlog Increases Each Year …………. 17 Argument: All Money Dedicated …………………………. 18
Argument: Projects and Costs to be Published …………. 19
Argument: There is No Street Repair Program …………. 20
Effect of Arguments …………………………………………. 21 Informed Support: $15 Million Bond …………………. 22
Informed Support: $10 Million Bond …………………. 23
Support for Three Cent Gas Tax …………………………. 24
CONCLUSIONS ...........................................…………………. 25
DATA TABLES
QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT
Attachment 5, Page 2 of 28
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The City of Springfield, faced with a street repair backlog in excess of $35 million, contracted with Advanced Marketing Research in order to draw insights about voter behavior surrounding a 2018 street repair bond measure, specifically:
Highest dollar amount most likely to succeed
Influence of information regarding impact to services
Likelihood of passing a gas tax for street maintenance and preservation
400 registered voters living within Springfield city limits who had voted at least once in the last four major elections were contacted by telephone and completed the survey.
Key Findings
Voters rate Springfield streets to be in “good” condition.
Neighborhood streets are rated 3.3 on a scale of one to five, where one is poor
and five is excellent.
Non-residential streets are rated 3.1 on the same scale.
Voters feel potholes warrant immediate correction, but cracks in the street can
wait.
83% feel potholes warrant immediate correction.
42% feel cracks warrant immediate correction, and 49% feel correction can be delayed.
Support is higher for the $10 million bond.
54.5% would likely vote yes for a $10 million bond that would cost the average
homeowner $88 per year. (38% “definitely yes” plus half of 24% “probably yes”
plus half of 9% “lean yes.”
41.5% would likely vote yes for a $15 million bond that would cost the average homeowner $133 per year. (26% “definitely yes” plus half of 24% “probably yes”
plus half of 7% “lean yes.”
Information makes a difference.
Knowing that all money collected would be dedicated to street repair would make 75% (much or somewhat) more likely to support a ballot measure.
Knowing that lists of projects to be done and their costs would be made public
would make 72% (much or somewhat) more likely to support a ballot measure.
Knowing that half of Springfield’s streets are in poor condition would make 57%
(much or somewhat) more likely to support a ballot measure.
Knowing that without the bond measure there will be no street repair program would make 55% (much or somewhat) more likely to support a ballot measure.
Attachment 5, Page 3 of 28
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Key Findings
Information makes a difference (continued)
Knowing that the backlog of needed street repairs increases by $5 million each
year would make 49% (much or somewhat) more likely to support a ballot
measure.
Informed support is high enough to pass the $10 million measure.
After hearing the information pieces, 59% would likely vote for the $10 million
bond (combining the “definitely yes” with half of the “probably yes” and half of the
“lean yes.”)
After hearing the information pieces, 46.5% would likely vote for the $15 million
bond (combining the “definitely yes” with half of the “probably yes” and half of the
“lean yes.”)
Three cent gas tax likely will not pass.
44.5% would likely vote yes for a three cent gas tax for ongoing street
maintenance, not enough support to pass the measure. (33% “definitely yes” plus
half of 17% “probably yes” plus half of 6% “lean yes.”
Conclusions
There is support for a $10 million street repair bond measure, and information plays a
role. There is not support for a gas tax, or for a $15 million bond measure.
Attachment 5, Page 4 of 28
5
IMPLEMENTATION
Background
In 2007, the City of Springfield discontinued its preservation of streets program. Since
then, the decline of the City’s street infrastructure has continued to accelerate. Currently,
the backlog of needed preservation and reconstruction stands in excess of $35 million,
and continues to grow at approximately $5 million per year.
The City of Springfield would like to test the likelihood of Springfield voters passing either
a five-year $15 million bond, costing the owner of a home assessed at $185,000 $133
per year, or passing a five-year $10 million bond, costing the average homeowner $88
per year. For purposes of maintenance and preservation, the City would also like to test the likelihood of voters passing a three cent gas tax, which would raise approximately
$1.1 million per year.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to assist the City of Springfield in determining the likelihood of passing a street repair bond, and a three cent gas tax.
Methodology
Advanced Marketing Research was hired to conduct the research project in order to
obtain unbiased and statistically valid results.
Using questions proposed by the City of Springfield, Advanced Marketing Research
designed a questionnaire instrument to be administered by telephone. Using a random
list of registered voters living within Springfield city limits, all of whom had voted at least
once out of the last four major elections as a sampling frame, 400 interviews were completed. Telephone interviews were conducted between May 18 and June 4, 2018.
Proper data analysis techniques were employed by Advanced Marketing Research to
avoid introducing unnecessary error and bias into the study.
Attachment 5, Page 5 of 28
6
IMPLEMENTATION
Quotas Observed
The gender and age quotas below were targeted in the data collection process to reflect
the frequencies observed in the list of voters who had voted at least once out of the last
four major elections.
Males 50%
Females 50%
18-24 6%
25-34 16% 35-44 17%
45-59 25%
60+ 37%
Response Rate
Of the 559 qualified respondents reached by telephone, 400 interviews were completed, for a response rate of 72%. The overall breakdown of numbers dialed is as follows:
Refusals 159
Disconnects 1,116
Wrong Numbers 422 Language Barrier 1
Spanish Language Barrier 6
Business Numbers 64
Fax 16
No Answer 36 Answering Machine 893
Busy Signal 64
Call Backs 24
No Qualified Respondent 99
Completed Interviews 400 Total Numbers Dialed 3,300
Attachment 5, Page 6 of 28
7
IMPLEMENTATION
Tests for Differences Between Proportions
When looking at the data tables, differences between percentage amounts can be
misleading, and statistical tests must be conducted to determine if the differences are
statistically significant. The computer makes these calculations for us, and the results are
occasional plus or minus signs at the bottom of certain cells. These indicate that those
answers are more different from everybody else’s answers than could be expected due
to chance, given the sample sizes involved. Plus signs are used if the group picks that
answer more often than everyone else; minus signs if it is less than everyone else. The
number of plus or minus signs indicates the level of statistical significance. One means
the 90% level, two the 95% level, and three the 99% level. For example, two plus signs would mean that you can be 95% sure that the people represented by that group really
would pick that answer more often than the people represented by the rest of the sample.
It should be noted that this test can only be done for banner columns that contain at least
30 people. Because of this requirement, it is possible that the test will be done for some banner columns on a table and not for others.
Notes on Chi Square
The chi square value and its associated probability are printed beneath the first column
in each banner heading. The probability (p=.xxx) indicates the probability that the heading
and row variables are not related is .xxx. For example, a .05 probability of not being
related means a 95 percent chance of being related.
Attachment 5, Page 7 of 28
8
IMPLEMENTATION
Bound on Error
SAMPLE SIZE Bound on Error at
SEX Frequency Percent 95% Confidence Level
Male 200 50% 6.4%
Female 200 50% 6.4%
AGE
18-24 18 5% --
25-34 51 13% 12.6%
35-44 74 19% 10.4%
45-59 104 26% 8.8% 60+ 153 38% 7.3%
OWN/RENT
Own 295 74% 5.2% Rent 102 26% 8.9%
TOTAL 402 100% 4.9%*
* What this means is that we are 95% certain that the maximum difference between the survey proportion and the population proportion on any given question is within (plus or minus) 4.9%, the population defined as City of Springfield voters who voted at least once
out the last four major elections.
Attachment 5, Page 8 of 28
9
IMPLEMENTATION
Differences Between Percentage Points
MINIMUM DIFFERENCE IN PERCENTAGE POINTS REQUIRED FOR
STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE IN COMPARISON OF REPORTED
PERCENTAGES FOR SUBGROUPS WITH 95% CONFIDENCE
Subsample 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 50 20% 17% 16% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
100 14% 13% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11%
150 11% 11% 10% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9% 9%
200 10% 9% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8%
250 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 300 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7%
350 7% 7% 7% 7% 6%
400 7% 7% 7% 6%
450 7% 6% 6%
500 6% 6% 600 6%
Minimums are for reported percentages near 50%. When much smaller or much larger percentages are reported, a slightly smaller minimum is required.
Attachment 5, Page 9 of 28
10
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Attachment 5, Page 10 of 28
11
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Rating of Springfield Streets (Q2-Q3)
Springfield voters rated the general condition of streets in their residential neighborhood
a 3.3 on a scale of one to five, while they rated the condition of streets in non-residential
areas of Springfield a 3.1.
Demographic Differences
Those who voted only once out of the last four elections were more likely than others to
feel the streets in their residential neighborhood are “excellent.” Ward Five residents are
more likely than others to rate their residential streets “poor.”
25 to 34 year-olds are more likely than others to rate non-residential streets of Springfield
“excellent.”
Attachment 5, Page 11 of 28
12
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Correction Warranted (Q4-Q5)
83% of voters feel potholes warrant immediate correction, while only 42% feel cracks in
the street warrant immediate correction.
Demographic Differences
Those who voted four out of the last four elections are more likely than others to feel
potholes warrant “immediate” correction, but more likely than others to feel cracks in the
street warrant “immediate” correction. Those 60 and over are also more likely than others
to feel cracks in the street warrant “immediate” correction. Ward Three residents are more
likely than others to feel cracks in the street warrant “delayed” correction.
Attachment 5, Page 12 of 28
13
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Level of Support for $15 Million Bond (Q6)
Respondents were told that Springfield is currently facing a backlog of over $35 million in
needed street repairs, and asked if they would support a five-year $15 million bond
costing the average homeowner $133 per year. 26% of voters say if the election were held today, they would definitely vote yes to support the new measure. An additional 24%
would probably vote yes, and 7% lean toward voting yes. 6% are undecided. 19% are
adamantly opposed, 14% probably opposed, and 5% leaning toward opposed.
Combining the 26% who would “definitely” vote yes with half of the 24% who would
“probably” vote yes, plus half of the 7% who “lean” toward voting yes, yields 41.5% who
would likely vote to support the measure.
The mean response is 4.5 on a seven-point scale, where one is “definitely no,” and seven
is “definitely yes.”
Demographic Differences
Ward Two residents are more likely than others to strongly support a $15 million bond.
Attachment 5, Page 13 of 28
14
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Level of Support for $10 Million Bond (Q7)
Respondents were told that a $10 million bond would cost the average homeowner $88
per year. 38% of voters say if the election were held today, they would definitely vote yes
to support a $10 million bond measure. An additional 24% would probably vote yes, and 9% lean toward voting yes. 3% are undecided. 16% are adamantly opposed, 8% probably
opposed, and 3% lean toward opposed.
Combining the 38% who would “definitely” vote yes with half of the 24% who would
“probably” vote yes, plus half of the 9% who “lean” toward voting yes, yields 54.5% who would likely vote to support the measure.
The mean response is 5.0 on a seven-point scale, where one is “definitely no,” and seven
is “definitely yes.”
Demographic Differences
Females are more likely than males to strongly support a $10 million bond.
Attachment 5, Page 14 of 28
15
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Level of Support at Various Amounts (Q6-Q7)
As the levy amount decreases, and with it the level of services, the proportion “definitely”
voting yes increases, from 26% at the highest dollar amount to 38% at the lowest dollar
amount.
As the levy amount decreases, opposition at all levels (“definitely,” “probably,” and
“leaning”) decreases.
Attachment 5, Page 15 of 28
16
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Argument: Half of Streets in Poor Condition (Q8)
Respondents were asked if they would be more likely to support or oppose the measure
if they knew that half of Springfield’s streets are in poor condition. 36% said this
information would make them “much more likely to support” the measure, while 21% said
they would be “somewhat more likely to support” the measure. 42% said the information
would make no difference.
The mean response is 3.9 on a five-point scale, where one is “much more likely to
oppose,” and five is “much more likely to support.”
Attachment 5, Page 16 of 28
17
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Argument: Backlog Increases Each Year (Q9)
Respondents were asked if they would be more likely to support or oppose the measure
if they knew that the backlog of needed repairs increases by approximately five million
dollars each year. 26% said this information would make them “much more likely to support” the measure, while 23% said they would be “somewhat more likely to support”
the measure. 47% said the information would make no difference.
The mean response is 3.7 on a five-point scale, where one is “much more likely to
oppose,” and five is “much more likely to support.”
Attachment 5, Page 17 of 28
18
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Argument: All Money Would Be Dedicated to Street Repair (Q10)
Respondents were asked if they would be more likely to support or oppose the measure
if they knew that all of the money collected would be dedicated to street repair. 56% said
this information would make them “much more likely to support” the measure, while 19%
said they would be “somewhat more likely to support” the measure. 24% said the
information would make no difference.
The mean response is 4.3 on a five-point scale, where one is “much more likely to
oppose,” and five is “much more likely to support.”
Attachment 5, Page 18 of 28
19
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Argument: Projects and Costs Would Be Published (Q11)
Respondents were asked if they would be more likely to support or oppose the measure
if they could see the list of projects to be done, and their cost. 46% said this information
would make them “much more likely to support” the measure, while 26% said they would
be “somewhat more likely to support” the measure. 26% said the information would make
no difference.
The mean response is 4.2 on a five-point scale, where one is “much more likely to
oppose,” and five is “much more likely to support.”
Attachment 5, Page 19 of 28
20
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Argument: There is No Street Repair Program (Q12)
Respondents were asked if they would be more likely to support or oppose the measure
if they knew that without the measure, Springfield has no dedicated street repair program.
30% said this information would make them “much more likely to support” the measure,
while 25% said they would be “somewhat more likely to support” the measure. 40% said
the information would make no difference.
The mean response is 3.8 on a five-point scale, where one is “much more likely to
oppose,” and five is “much more likely to support.”
Attachment 5, Page 20 of 28
21
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Effect of Arguments (Q8-Q12)
The most effective argument for voting for a street measure is that all money collected
would be dedicated to street repair. 75% would be “much more” or “somewhat more” likely
to support the bond measure after hearing this argument. Of nearly equal effectiveness is the information that lists of projects to be done, and their costs would be made public.
This information would cause 72% to be “much more” or “somewhat more” likely to
support the bond measure. 57% would be positively swayed by the information that half
of Springfield’s streets are in poor condition. 55% would be positively swayed by the
information that without the bond measure, Springfield has no dedicated street repair program. 49% would be positively swayed by the information that the backlog of needed
street repairs increases by approximately $5 million each year.
Attachment 5, Page 21 of 28
22
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Informed Support: $15 Million Bond (Q13)
After hearing information regarding the consequences of not passing a bond measure,
34% would “definitely” support the $15 million measure, compared with 26% before
hearing the information. 19% would “probably” support the measure, compared with 24% before the information.
Combining the 34% who would “definitely” vote yes with half of the 19% who would
“probably” vote yes, plus half of the 6% who would “lean” toward voting yes, yields 46.5%
who would likely vote to support the measure, if they are informed.
Attachment 5, Page 22 of 28
23
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Informed Support: $10 Million Bond (Q14)
After hearing information regarding the consequences of not passing a bond measure,
44% would “definitely” support the $10 million measure, compared with 38% before
hearing the information. 23% would “probably” support the measure, compared with 24% before the information.
Combining the 44% who would “definitely” vote yes with half of the 23% who would
“probably” vote yes, plus half of the 7% who would “lean” toward voting yes, yields 59%
who would likely vote to support the measure, if they are informed.
Demographic Differences
Ward Two residents are more likely than others to strongly support a $10 million bond.
Attachment 5, Page 23 of 28
24
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Support for 3 Cent Gas Tax (Q15)
Voters were told that for purposes of ongoing street maintenance and maximizing the life
of the streets, a three cent per gallon increase in the gas tax would raise $1.1 million per
year. Asked if they would support or oppose a three cent gas tax, 33% would “definitely” vote yes, 17% would “probably” vote yes, and 6% would lean toward voting yes. 5% are
undecided. 28% are adamantly opposed, 8% probably opposed, and 3% leaning toward
opposed.
Combining the 33% who would “definitely” vote yes with half of the 17% who would
“probably” vote yes, plus half of the 6% who “lean” toward voting yes, yields 44.5% who
would likely vote to support the gas tax measure.
The mean response is 4.4 on a seven-point scale, where one is “definitely no,” and seven
is “definitely yes.”
Attachment 5, Page 24 of 28
25
CONCLUSIONS
Attachment 5, Page 25 of 28
26
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions
There is voter support for a $10 million street repair bond measure, and not for a $15
million measure. There is insufficient support for a three cent street maintenance gas tax
measure. Information will assist the $10 million measure passing, particularly knowing
that all the money collected will be dedicated to street repair, and being able to see a list of projects to be done along with associated costs.
Information not collected in the survey, but which was anecdotally picked up by all of the
interviewers was the sentiment that the City of Springfield has already been given money
for street maintenance, and the question of where has that money gone. There is the feeling expressed by many that this has already been paid for, although some went on to
approve the measure anyway. If this is a misconception, perhaps the City can correct it
through an information campaign.
Attachment 5, Page 26 of 28
27
DATA TABLES
Attachment 5, Page 27 of 28
28
QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT
Attachment 5, Page 28 of 28