HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Street Assets Unfunded Liability AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/14/2018
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Tom Boyatt, DPW Interim Director
Staff Phone No: 541-744-3373
Estimated Time: 40 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 condition of the City’s street assets, past efforts to fund surface
preservation and rehabilitation, and options to address the growing problem and
provide direction to staff moving forward.
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. Staff seeks Council’s direction on how to approach this
problem of growing concern.
ATTACHMENTS: ATT1: Council Briefing Memo
ATT2: June 20, 2016 Council AIS Packet ATT3: June 9, 2014 Council AIS Packet
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The City’s constrained ability to keep up with the preservation needs of the
community’s street system in the past 10 years is a growing problem that will become overwhelming if not addressed. The voters declined to support local option
gas tax increases in 2009 (2 cents/gallon) and 2016 (3 cents/gallon). In 2015, Lane
County’s vehicle registration fee ballot measure also failed. In 2017 the State Legislature passed House Bill 2017, which provides for an estimated $5.3 billion in
new transportation revenues statewide over the next 10 years. Springfield anticipates receiving about $700,000 new dollars per year between mid-2018 and mid-2022. That revenue should increase again by about $350,000 for 2023 and
2024 and then again by the same amount in 2026. Unfortunately, these increases will barely keep pace with increased costs to operate and maintain the system, driven primarily by personnel and materials costs, and the addition of new facilities
as the city continues to grow.
Options to fund preservation and rehabilitation of Springfield’s ~$450 million
dollar streets asset on which the community’s vitality depends continue to be fairly limited and include local option gas tax increases, a general obligation bond to
restore some portion of the system, and a street utility fee approach which could be
used to secure a revenue bond to restore some portion of the system.
Staff is seeking Council guidance on next steps. Should Council desire to bring a
funding measure before the voters at the November general election, all materials will be due to the State no later than September 6, 2018.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 5/14/2018
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. Staff seeks Council’s direction on how to approach this
problem of growing concern.
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.
The City’s unfunded streets asset liability is a problem that grows on a steep curve because
preservation investments not made over the past 10 years have led to replacement costs at 7 to 10 times the cost to preserve those portions of the system. Further, streets continue to age, and
require preservation treatments to continue in a state of good repair. The City has access to
limited federal dollars for discreet projects available through the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (CLMPO), as well as earmark state funding for 42nd St. in 2023. The City
also expects to see increased operations dollars from the most recent state transportation legislation, HB 2017. While this funding helps, it does not materially change the magnitude of the unfunded asset liability and its projected future decline.
OPTIONS:
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM 5/9/2018 Page 2
Staff seeks direction from Council on the preferred approach to new revenue at this time. As noted above, over the years Council has considered the suit of options available for street
funding:
Local Option Gas Tax
Vehicle Registration Fee (Lane County)
Street Utility Fee and Revenue Bond
Operating Levy
General Obligation Bond
Because the first two options are familiar to Council and have been tested fairly recently, this discussion focuses on the three remaining options.
Street Utility Fee/Revenue Bond
Transportation utility fees are allowed in Oregon, and are currently used by 34 cities. While methodologies vary, the concept is to charge a monthly fee to properties in proportion to system
usage based on widely accepted industry trip estimating standards. Fees may go out on utility bills or in some other cost efficient manner. Street Utility Fees do not require a public vote, but
may be referred by voters using the State’s referendum process. Florence is the only city in
Lane County with a Street Utility fee, established in 2012 at $5.00/month. Cities of population size comparable to Springfield that have Street Utility Fees include Tigard, Corvallis and
Medford.
Depending on the street utility monthly rate, this type of revenue stream would provide the City
with an opportunity to start investing in the repair backlog and may also provide the option to
bond for capital improvements by securing bond repayment with the new revenue stream, much like municipal utilities already do. In this case, the bond does not go onto property tax bills
because its repayment is covered by the utility rate revenue. Should Council see merit in exploring this concept further, staff will investigate how this process is working in some of Springfield’s comparable cities and develop a simplified rate chart that provides several options
for monthly rates, the associated annual yield, and options for securing bonds with this revenue.
In the past, the Springfield Utility Board has shown little interest in billing and collecting a street
utility fee for the City although SUB does collect the Regional MWMC rate, and the local waste water and storm water rates. If Council desires more information on this approach, staff will
contact SUB to retest the assumption that SUB does not wish to include an additional City fee
with its monthly invoice, what the cost of adding this monthly bill might be, and the benefit/cost of pursuing a city-specific enterprise billing system to bring all local billing in house (MWMC,
local sanitary, local storm), and potentially provide billing services to other providers.
Operating Levy
A local option operating levy is another option that may merit consideration. In this scenario the
City would propose a five year operating levy to the voters, use the levy to cover some or all of annual operations cost, and repurpose the same amount from the current revenue stream to
capital preservation projects. Over the course of five years some portion of the unfunded asset liability could be addressed, depending on the size of the levy.
Operating levies are subject to Oregon property tax law limitations, which can create
“compression” among all voter approved operating levies within the municipal taxing boundary. This could pose a problem to existing City levies (Finer and Police) and possibly other levies
currently in play. Compression limits the amount of all levies combined to $10 per $1,000 of assessed property value. When another levy is passed either within compression or creating compression, then the other levies are reduced proportionally until the $10/$1,000 is reached.
Should Council find merit in further investigating this approach, staff will provide information
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 4
MEMORANDUM 5/9/2018 Page 3
on the various operating levies, including the City’s Police and Fire levies, and how a new levy might impact the ability of the existing levies to collect revenue as planned under compression.
General Obligation (GO) Bond
GO bonds are a common way for municipalities to generate funds to build sizeable system
improvements. Subject to voter approval, the City levies a property tax sufficient to pay the
principal and interest of a GO bond over a fixed term such as 10 years or 20 years. Bond funds are not available for ongoing maintenance and repair, but are allowed for capital preservation
spending. A GO bond can be sized to address some or all of the streets preservation backlog,
and once approved, can be sold in phases to limit the carrying costs of this financing instrument to when the funds are actually expended. The pay back term of a GO bond cannot exceed the
useful life of the asset.
The total cost of a GO bond to property owners is understood in terms of amount of tax levied
per $1,000 of property value. Larger sized bonds will have a higher levied tax per $1,000 of assessed property value. Further, the shorter the bond repayment term, the higher the cost per $1,000 of assessed property value.
As information for Council discussion, the table below summarizes how the different variables
of amount and term could impact property taxes. Please note that the increment for measuring
impact is a single family home with a Real Market Value (RMV) of $250,000 and an Assessed Value (AV) for taxation purposes of $185,000.
Bond Amount
5 Year
$185,000 AV
10 Year
$185,000 AV
20 Year
$185,000 AV
Cost/
Thousand
Annual
Cost
Cost/
Thousand
Annual
Cost
Cost/
Thousand
Annual
Cost
$10 million $0.477 $88 $0.296 $55 0.184 $34
$15 million $0.718 $133 $0.445 $82 0.276 $51
$20 million $0.956 $177 $0.593 $110 0.367 $68
Because the streets asset liability problem is large and complex, there are a variety of approaches the City could take to begin working to bring the asset condition more into balance. The key variables in this equation are the amount of new revenue and the term of any borrowing. For
example, the City of Eugene has approached their streets asset liability with shorter term GO bonds aimed at a specific set of projects. This strategy has relied on a series of 5 year capital
bonds where the first bond proved to the community the City’s ability to complete high priority
work to address needed street repairs. The second 5 year bond leveraged the success of the first five year program and now Eugene is preparing to deliver a third 5 year bond list of projects.
At the other end of the spectrum is an approach which spreads the cost of improvements out across 20 years. This strategy lowers the cost to property owners on a yearly basis and stretches
the bond over multiple more years. Longer term bond issues will have higher interest costs.
Shorter term bond issues will increase the cost of bringing bond issues to the marketplace.
PROJECT PRIORITIES:
Below are several different scenarios for Council consideration and discussion in terms of how to approach rescuing a portion of the streets asset portfolio. Decisions about how to fund
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 4
MEMORANDUM 5/9/2018 Page 4
Arterials and Collectors
This approach would focus new revenues on the ‘backbone’ of the transportation system that
carries most of the City’s traffic, serves commerce, industry and freight, and connects to surrounding areas and the statewide highway system. The arterial and collector backlog is about
75% of the unfunded liability, or about $23 million per 2015 estimates. In early 2016 staff
identified about $15 million in high priority arterial and collector projects from the larger list. One strategy could be to propose a 10 year capital bond at a higher amount to address high
priority arterial and collector projects in a shorter time frame.
Arterials, Collectors and Locals
Another approach could be to focus on a smaller number of key arterials and collectors and
make lower cost crack seal and slurry seal investments in residential local streets. Depending on the amount of funds available, as much as 80% of new revenue could still go to the arterials and
collectors backlog with 20% funds sufficient to use preservation techniques on the list of high priority residential streets throughout the City. Bond term is also scalable.
TIMING:
Bringing forward a request for funding to the voters should be mindful of existing financing
schedules and options. The City’s local option Fire levy comes up again in 2020, with the
Police levy before the voters in 2022. Willamalane has indicated they are looking at the 2023 time frame for another funding request, which at this point sounds like more and operating levy
than a capital bond. The City is also grappling with an unfunded asset liability in its buildings
and facilities, a certain portion of which should probably be accomplished sooner rather than later, and looking at the potential to construct a new library suing the general obligation bonding
approach.
NEXT STEPS:
Depending on direction provided, staff is prepared to bring a more specific proposal or a refined
set of options back to Council for consideration and direction in June. In order to take a funding option to the voters in November 2018, Council would need to make a final decision before
summer recess or hold a special meeting over the summer.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review potential revenue mechanisms to improve or eliminate the unfunded streets asset
liability and provide staff direction on next steps.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 4
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.
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 20
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
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 20
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
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 20
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
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 20
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
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 20
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
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 20
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
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 20
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
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 20
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
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 20
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
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 20
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
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 20
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
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 20
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
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 20
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
Attachment 2, Page 14 of 20
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
Attachment 2, Page 15 of 20
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 1Attachment 2, Page 16 of 20
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 1Attachment 2, Page 17 of 20
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 3Attachment 2, Page 18 of 20
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 CENTENNIAL BLVD 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
Attachment 2, Page 19 of 20
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
Attachment 2, Page 20 of 20
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.
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 24
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 6
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.
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
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 24
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 6
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.
DISCUSSION:
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 24
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 6
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
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
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 24
Attachment 1
Page 4 of 6
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).
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
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 24
Attachment 1
Page 5 of 6
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
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.
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 24
Attachment 1
Page 6 of 6
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 3, Page 7 of 24
City of Springfield Street Preservation Backlog
55
number of streets
needing slurry seal
1.3M
estimated backlog in
local street overlay
25M
estimated backlog in
minor arterial/collector street overlay
350K
estimated backlog in
slurry seal
28
number of local
streets needing
overlay
36
number of minor arterial/collector
streets needing overlay
27.2M
estimated backlog in
preservation city-wide
2007
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 of 4
Attachment 3, Page 8 of 24
Highest Priority Streets
Minor Arterial/Collector Overlay
Location From To Sq.yds. cost
MohawkBlvd. Overpass MarcolaRd.2,357 $117,850
42ndSt.MainSt.42ndSt.UAC 16,124 $578,000
MarcolaRd. 42nd St.CityLimits 13,133 $521,000
HarlowRd. GatewayBlvd. WestCityLimits 6,425 $237,745
28thSt.MainSt.OlympicSt.20,725 $1,020,000
MarcolaRd. 19th St.42ndSt.36,850 $1,842,500
LauraSt. Q St.2133LauraSt. 8,547 $427,350
QSt.PioneerParkway West 5th St.8,751 $358,000
S.5thSt. Main St.S.BSt.1,764 $88,200
GSt.21stSt.28thSt.6,603 $396,000
19thSt.MarcolaRd.213019thSt.2,360 $107,000
W.DSt.Mill St.AspenSt.14,665 $902,000
ESt.MillSt.28thSt.42,330 $2,116,500
ThurstonRd. 58th St.69thSt.26,265 $1,313,250
DaisySt.S42ndSt.S.46thSt.9,000 $450,000
DaisySt.S.48thSt.BobStraub Parkway 20,405 $1,020,250
18thSt.JSt.MohawkBlvd. 8,576 $414,000
HighBanksRd. 52nd St.58thSt.17,434 $871,700
58thSt.MainSt.ThurstonRd.12,687 $634,350
MillStreet MainSt.CentennialBlvd. 17,311 $865,550
66thSt.MainSt.ThurstonRd.12,800 $640,000
CommercialAve. 21 CommercialAve. 42ndSt.2,480 $100,000
S.2nd St. 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 I105 HighBanksRd. 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.Mill St. Main St.S.ASt.583 $29,150
QSt.5thSt.19thSt.29,815 $1,490,750
14thSt.MainSt.GSt.10,199 $509,950
CentennialBlvd. I 5Overpass 5thSt.50,202 $2,510,100
CentennialBlvd. 5th St.MohawkBlvd. 19,249 $962,450
GatewaySt.InternationalWy. I5Underpass 5,000 $250,000
GatewaySt.HarlowRd.BeltlineRd.28,162 $1,364,000
E.17thAve. GlenwoodBlvd. Henderson Ave. 3,465 $189,000
MinorArterial/CollectorOverlays $25,562,745
LocalStreets Overlay $1,299,083
LocalStreets Slurry(HighestPriority)$350,350
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 4
Attachment 3, Page 9 of 24
Highest Priority Streets
Local Streets Needing an Overlay
LindaleDR Laura PheasantBLVD 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 UST VST 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 FST GST 1,267.78
S14 thST SAST SBST 554.67
23rdST GST DubenLN 1,430.00
AST 21stST 22nd ST 1,344.00
AST 22ndST 23rd ST 1,423.33
IST Mohawk 16th ST 1,866.67
S44 thST MainST Aster 1,590.00
S44 thST Aster S43 rd PL 896.67
S44 thST S43 rdPL Camellia 1,066.67
S47 thST Main AsterST 1,155.00
S49 thPL 241Aster 247S49thPL 627.11
S49 thPL 289S49thPL BluebelleWay 899.1162ndPLMainSTAST1,340.44
TotalSq.Yds.
OverlayCosts $23.00
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 4
Attachment 3, Page 10 of 24
Highest Priority Streets
Local (Residential) Slurry Seal
FST PIONEERPARKWAY EAST 04THST 1,314.67 5,206.08WNSTWATERSTLAURAST1,239.11 4,906.88
LINDALEDR PHEASANTBLVD LINDALE DR 1,956.67 7,748.40
S68THPL MAINST ASTERST 1,065.33 4,218.72
BEVERLYST HARLOWRD BEVERLYST 1,295.00 5,128.20KRUSEWAY HUTTONST GATEWAYST 2,036.22 8,063.44WNSTKELLYBLVDPRESCOTTLN 2,070.22 8,198.08KELLYBLVD W HST WIST 1,418.67 5,617.92
03RDPL DEPUEST CUSTOMWAY 1,851.11 7,330.40
26THST AST CST 2,398.00 9,496.08
OAKDALEAVE GAMEFARMRD PHEASANTBLVD 1,029.33 4,076.16PRESCOTTLN W CENTENNIALBLVD W MST 1,005.33 3,981.1212THSTOLYMPICSTPLEASANTST789.33 3,125.76MARKETST MST NST 1,171.11 4,637.60
MARKETST PLEASANTST PIEDMONTST 959.56 3,799.84
MARKETST PIEDMONTST QUINALTST 952.00 3,769.92
HAYDENBRIDGEPL 07THST 08THST 957.33 3,791.04PRESCOTTLNPRESCOTTLNWCENTENNIALBLVD 2,693.56 10,666.4812THSTMAINSTAST1,616.00 6,399.3622NDSTASTDST3,672.00 14,541.12
49THST MAINST AST 1,295.78 5,131.28
66THST THURSTONRD JULESPL 922.67 3,653.76
08THST BST CST 1,220.22 4,832.0815THSTQSTSST2,883.33 11,418.0017THSTOLYMPICST17THST2,426.67 9,609.60S72NDST S72NDST S72NDST 910.44 3,605.36DAISYSTS72NDSTDAISYST1,300.00 5,148.00
10THST QST FUCHSIAST 1,031.11 4,083.20
MARKETST OLYMPIC ST PLEASANTST 963.33 3,814.80LST13THSTMARKETST2,292.89 9,079.84LST12THST13THST1,610.00 6,375.60HAYDENBRIDGEPL 08THST HAYDENBRIDGEPL 693.33 2,745.60GLACIERDRGLACIERDRS70THST1,781.33 7,054.08
WK ST MILLST WATERST 996.44 3,945.92
MARKETST N ST OLYMPICST 986.00 3,904.5607THSTQST07THST1,945.56 7,704.40LAWNRIDGEAVE ROSE BLOSSOM DR DEBRADR 963.33 3,814.80MARKETST CENTENNIALBLVD LST 1,261.78 4,996.6401STPLJST01STST2,689.78 10,651.52
06THST GST CENTENNIALBLVD 5,474.00 21,677.04
JANUSST HAMILTONST JANUSST 831.11 3,291.20WQUINALTST WQUINALT ST WQUINALT ST 636.67 2,521.2004THSTGSTDEPUEST1,930.00 7,642.80S69THPLS69THPLS69THPL696.67 2,758.80S72NDST S72NDST S72NDST 906.67 3,590.40
S72NDST S72NDST DAISYST 906.67 3,590.40
MST MARKETST CARTERLN 1,258.22 4,982.56
PRESCOTTLN W MST WN ST 1,015.00 4,019.40HAMILTONST JANUS ST ISLANDST 3,392.78 13,435.40JANUSSTJANUSSTJANUSST576.00 2,280.9610THSTFUCHSIASTRST540.22 2,139.28
12THST LST MST 1,178.67 4,667.52
IST 12THST MOHAWKBLVD 3,498.56 13,854.28
PHEASANTBLVD HARLOW RD OAKDALEAVE 4,606.33 18,241.08ASTERSTS70THPLS71STST1,360.00 5,385.60
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 4
Attachment 3, Page 11 of 24
StreetSystemFundingOptionMatrix2014FundingMethodsAuthorizedByPaidByCanBeUsedForCollectionMethodPotentialFee/RateEstimatedAmountRaisedProsConsPrimaryStakeholderGroupsPayAsYouGoLocalFuelTaxElectionPeoplewhopurchasegasinSpringfieldAnystreetrelatedexpenseperStateConstitutionODOTCurrently3centspergallon.A2centincreasewouldbringSpringfieldtosametaxamountasEugene.$650,000Feeisrelatedtouseofroads,capturespassthroughvisitors,itisanexistingtaxandhasreliablecollection.NoadditionalcollectionexpenseVMTisdecreasing;recenttrendsshowthatthisrevenuesourceisflatandnotexpectedtogrowbasedonvolumeusage;insteadrevenuegrowthisbasedonratechanges.Springfield:FuelingandTruckingCompanies;HotelOwners;SpringfieldChamberofCommerceCountyVehicleRegistrationFeeCountyOrdinanceand/orElectionVehicleOwnersAnystreetrelatedexpenseperStateConstitutionDMV$43perregistration$2MillionFeeisrelatedtouseofroads,Cityreceivesanautomaticshare,NoadditionalcollectionexpenseThisfeehasnotbeenestablishedyet,requiresactionbyCountyVehicleownersTransportationSystemsMaintenanceFee(TSMF)CityOrdinanceand/orElectionSpringfieldPropertyOwnersOperationsorCapitalexpensesUtilitybillsthroughSUBoranewCollectionsfunctionoperatedbyCity$5$8permonthpersinglefamilyresidence;nonresidentialratebasedonITEtripdataUpto$4.5MilliondependingonratestructureFeeisrelatedtouseofroads,providessteadyrevenuestream.Couldbeusedtobackrevenuebondsinthefuture.CitiesacrossOregonhavethisfeeinplacealready.NeedamendedIGAwithSUBforbillingandcollectionserviceorsetupacollectionsysteminCity.SpringfieldChamberofCommerce;LaneCountyRealtorAssociation;SpringfieldTruckingCompanies;LeagueofWomenVotersLocalOptionLevyElection–nodoublemajorityrequirementifMayorNovSpringfieldPropertyOwnersOperations(5yearlimit)orCapital(10yearlimit)PropertyTaxBill(subjecttoMeasure5compression)$1.00/$1,000assessedvalue$3.8MillionFundsareavailableforprojectsastaxesarepaideachNovember.Nocollectionexpense.CityhassuccessfullypassedLO’sinthepast.Notapermanentsolution,levyhastoberenewedbyvoters.WillcompetewithotherLO’sunderMeasure5taxlimit.CityhastwoLO’sinplacealready.SpringfieldChamberofCommerce;LaneCountyRealtorAssociation;SpringfieldTruckingCompanies;LeagueofWomenVotersDebtInstrumentsGeneralObligationBondsElection–nodoublemajorityrequirementifMayorNovSpringfieldPropertyOwnersCapitalexpensesonlyperStateConstitution,nomaintenanceoroperationsPropertyTaxBill(notsubjecttocompression)64cents/$1,000assessedvalue(basedoncollecting$2.6Mfrom2013propertyvalues)$22Millionwithdebtserviceof$2.6Millionperyearfor10yearsFundsareavailableforprojectsassoonasbondsaresold.Nocollectionexpense.Traditionalfinancingmethodfamiliartotaxpayers.Constitutionlimitsuseoffunds,cannotbeusedforoperations.CitymaywishtoissueGOBondsforothercapitalneedsbeyondstreetrepairs.Portionofproceedsgoestopayinterestandbondissuancecosts.SpringfieldChamberofCommerce;LaneCountyRealtorAssociation;SpringfieldTruckingCompanies;LeagueofWomenVotersRevenueBonds/StateInfrastructureBankLoanProgramCouncilRepaidfromadedicatedrevenuestreamsuchasTSMFCapitalExpensesBuiltintorateofthededicatedrevenuestreamProratedshareof$5$8TSMF(approx.$3$5)$22MillionWithdebtserviceof$2.7Mperyearfor10yearsFundsareavailableassoonasbondsaresold.RequiresTSMFratetobeadjustedtomeetbondrequirements,similartostormwaterandwastewaterbonds.CannotissuebondsuntilreserveshavebeenbuiltupinStreetFund.RatepayersMunicipalLoanCouncilRepaidfromadedicatedrevenuestreamsuchasincreasedgastaxorTSMFCapitalorOperatingExpensesBuiltintorateofthededicatedrevenuestreamAdditional2centspergallonfueltaxorproratedshareof$5$8TSMF$5M$6Mwithdebtserviceof$500kto$700kperyearfor10years.Fundsareavailableassoonasloanisclosed.CostofinterestishigherthanGOorRevenueBonds,loantermisshorterthanGOorRevenueBonds.LikelyrequirementtopledgefullfaithandcreditofCity’sgeneraltaxingauthorityforloanofanysize.Ratepayers Attachment 3 Page 1 of 1Attachment 3, Page 12 of 24
OregonCitiesDataforStreetSystemFundingCityPassage DateTax Rate (cents/gal.)#City*2012 pop.Passage DateSingle FamilyFY13 RevenueCity 2012 pop.Passage DateSingle Family FeeFY13 RevenuePassage DateLocal Fuel TaxFY13 Revenue1Astoria2007 3 cents1Ashland 20,325 19898.17$1,309,151Medford 75,545 19918.45$7,698,4842Canby2008 3 cents2Bay City* 1,305 20035.00$48,605Tigard 48,695 20035.56$2,017,2732006 3 cents $ 720,000 3Coburg2007 3 cents3Brookings 6,316 19872.94$131,202Canby 15,865 2008 5.00$532,9622008 3 cents $ 249,000 4Coquille2007 3 cents4Canby 15,865 2008 5.00$532,962Milwaukie 20,435 20063.35$600,0002007 2 cents $ 200,000 5Cornelius2009 2 cents5Cannon Beach 1,692 1991.259/$1000177,0006Cottage Grove2003 3 cents6Central Point 17,411 20084.98$335,8207Dundee20032 cents7Clatskanie** 1,729 20125.50$81,3978Eugene2003 5 cents8Corvallis 55,055 20051.36$422,1809Hood River20093 cents9Dufur** 609 20015.00$17,00010Milwaukie2007 2 cents10Eagle Point 8,550 19906.00$303,00011Newport2009 1 cent (Nov.-May) 11Florence 8,584 20125.00$265,724Newport2009 3 cents (June-Oct.)12Grants Pass 34,740 20013.42$828,64512Oakridge2004 3 cents13Hillsboro 92,550 2008 3.10$932,30013Sandy20021 cent14Hubbard 3,185 200110.39$63,52114Sisters20093 cents15La Grande 13,110 2009 8.00$400,00015Springfield2003 3 cents16Lake Oswego 36,770 20038.27$2,323,00016Stanfield1999 1 cent17Medford 75,545 19918.45$7,698,48417The Dalles1980 3 cents18Milwaukie 20,435 20063.35$600,00018Tigard2006 3 cents19Myrtle Creek 3,427 20103.00$47,77219Tillamook1982 1.5 cents20North Plains 1,990 20031.33$20,00020Veneta2004 3 cents21Oregon City 32,500 2008 11.56$1,872,77921Warrenton2007 3 cents22Philomath 4,620 20032.00$52,50022Woodburn1989 1 cent23Phoenix 4,570 19942.21$128,87924Sherwood 18,771 20072.00$277,000Pendleton2009 (Sunset March 2013)4 cents25Silverton 9,344 20135.00$135,00026Stayton 7,713 20112.50$84,00027Talent 6,115 20003.92$162,26928Tigard 48,695 20035.56$2,017,27329Toledo 3,462 20093.00$102,50030Tualatin 26,120 19903.92$647,60831West Linn 25,370 2008 10.31$870,00032Wilsonville 20,515 19974.03$659,00033Winston 5,352 20091.50$62,36234Wood Village 3,960 20129.50$164,743ComparativeCities(LOC2014)Local Gas Tax Information(LOC 2014)*BayCity'sroadmaintenancefeeisestablishedbyordinance,butthefeeissetbyresolution.**street utility fees are included in the fee schedule.TransportationUtilityFee(LOC2014)Attachment 4 Page 1 of 1Attachment 3, Page 13 of 24
#Year CityPopulation2012SingleFamilyMultiFamilySeniorhousing/MobileHomeparksSeniorHousing/CongregateCareFacilitiesAffordableHousing CommercialBillingUnitCollectionMethod11989 Ashland20,325$8.17Monthly Utilitybill22003 BayCity1,305$5.00EDUrateMonthly Utilitybill31987 Brookings6,316$2.94$2.94permeter,$2.94Monthly Utilitybill42008 Canby15,865$5.00$3.34$2.09$1.04TripRate*Category*.522MonthlyCollectedonSewerandTUFUtility51991 CannonBeach1,692$0.259Per1,000assessedvaluePropertytaxes62008CentralPoint 17,411$4.98ADTperKSF.2207$11.20ADTperKSF.5203Monthly Utilitybill72012 Clatskanie1,729$5.50$5.50$5.50$8.00Utilitybill82005 Corvallis55,055$1.36$0.94.021perdailytripMonthly Utilitybill92001 Dufur609$5.00$5.00$5.00Monthly Utilitybill101990EaglePoint18,550$6.00Tripgeneration Tripgeneration TripgenerationTripgenerationMonthly Utilitybill112012Florence28,484$5.00$5.00$5.00Monthly Utilitybill122001 GrantsPass34,740$3.42$2.28$1.71$0.85Monthly Utilitybill132008Hillsboro292,550$3.10Monthly Utilitybill142001 Hubbard3,185$10.39Bimonthly Utilitybill152009LaGrande313,110$8.00$4.00$8.00$8.00Monthly Utilitybill162003 LakeOswego36,770$8.27Monthly Utilitybill171991 Medford75,545$8.45$6.7539.61/acredividedby#ofMH.$4.25AverageDailyTripsblendedtripends/.553/tripendNocapaselfregulatingcapMonthly Utilitybill182006 Milwaukie20,435$3.35$2.10$1.40$0.70averagedailytrafficgenerationbasedonLandUsexratepertrip($.35)capat$250Monthly Utilitybill192010 MyrtleCreek3,427$3.00Monthly Utilitybill202003 NorthPlains1,990$1.33Pertrip Utilitybill212008OregonCity432,500$11.56$8.12$11.56$1.98/bedtypeandsizeofdevelopmentMonthly Utilitybill222003 Philomath4,620$2.00$1.606.8022.75Monthly UtilitybillTUFFee/monthLOCTransportationUserFeeSurvey20141Attachment 5 Page 1Attachment 3, Page 14 of 24
#Year CityPopulation2012SingleFamilyMultiFamilySeniorhousing/MobileHomeparksSeniorHousing/CongregateCareFacilitiesAffordableHousing CommercialBillingUnitCollectionMethodTUFFee/monthLOCTransportationUserFeeSurvey2014231994 Phoenix4,570$2.21$1.46$1.09ITEtripcounts.TrafficFlowforStreetUser.FlatrateforHwy99userfee.Monthly Utilitybill242007 Sherwood18,771$2.00$2.00/EDU2.00/ESUMonthly Utilitybill252013 Silverton9,344$5.00Monthly Utilitybill262011Stayton57,713$2.50$1.12$1.04/MobileHome.50/livingunittripsperday$5.00,$10.00,$20.00Monthly Utilitybill272000 Talent6,115$3.92Monthly Utilitybill282003 Tigard48,695$5.83$5.83Nowis#ofparkingspacesandacapof200spaces.Nowcapisat250spaces.Monthly Utilitybill292009 Toledo3,462$3.00$2.10rateschedulebasedontrafficrating.SeeresolutionMonthlyUtilitybill301990 Tualatin26,120$3.92Monthly Utilitybill312008 WestLinn25,370$10.31$9.78N/ABasedon#tripsHomebased5.89/month0to505.89/month51to250.66/trip251500.79/trip501+trips.90/tripMonthly Utilitybill321997 Wilsonville20,515$4.03$2.62$4.03$10.46Tripgeneration/TrucktrafficMonthly Utilitybill332009 Winston5,352$1.50$1.50$1.50$1.50Monthly Utilitybill342012 WoodVillage3,960$9.50$6.4425%discountaveragedailytrafficgenerationxratepertripMonthly Utilitybill2Attachment 5 Page 2Attachment 3, Page 15 of 24
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 necessaryto 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’scity
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
Attachment 3, Page 16 of 24
Pavement preservation is the most
costeffective 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 Departmentof 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 thegrowing
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
Attachment 3, Page 17 of 24
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 tax Cities with a TUF Cities 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
Attachment 3, Page 18 of 24
Street Communication Plan Update
and Revenue Funding Options
Attachment 3, Page 19 of 24
Attachment 3, Page 20 of 24
Examples of
Current Roadway Conditions
Attachment 3, Page 21 of 24
Examples of
Current Roadway Conditions
Attachment 3, Page 22 of 24
Examples of
Current Roadway Conditions
Attachment 3, Page 23 of 24
Strategy Recommendations
Fuel Tax
(short term)
4.5M
Regular
Preservation,
Overlay Cycles
& Operating
Cost
25M
Backlog
650K 3.85M 25M
Street
User Fee
(mid-term)
GO Bond
(long term)
Strategy 1:
•Establish a Transportation
System Maintenance Fee
•Increase the Local Fuel Tax
Strategy 2:
•GO Bond
Strategy 3:
•Continued monitoring of system
Attachment 3, Page 24 of 24