Sam’s Transportation Funding meeting

The first thing you need to know if you’re planning to attend one of the remaining Town Hall meetings called by Commissioner Sam Adams to preview and discuss his proposals for raising money to buy transportation improvements in Portland, is ARRIVE EARLY. Turns out suggesting raising taxes, and/or providing services long-desired, will motivate citizens to show up. More than 100 people packed the Senior Center lobby at the Multnomah Center last night, with a dozen or so more of us in an adjacent room watching on TV.

A second reason to show up early is that Sam chooses to talk about the elephant in the living room right up front – questions of why the City needs to ask residents and businesses for more money are first in the Power Point presentation. And the topic was dealt with surprisingly fast. I was ten minutes late, having difficulty finding parking and then missing more of the presentation walking around to the overflow room. By 7:15, the group had moved on. I heard afterward there were many who came to protest the concept… and that they were pressed to pipe down by the majority who were there to seek funding for improvements. Now, the meeting morphed from Sam attending the SW Neighborhoods, Inc., (SWNI) Transportation Committee, to Sam holding his first Town Hall (in a space meant for about 30 instead of closer to 130). So representatives from most of SW’s 17 neighborhoods who serve on the Transportation Committee were there in force, eager for finding ways to fund needed services. But still, it was surprising to me that the “No New Taxes” debate was over before 7:20 p.m.

A final process note before I cover some of the substance presented: Sam Adams is a terrific group facilitator. Watching on TV in the nearby classroom, I found myself assessing his performance from the standpoint of both psychiatric nurse and as someone who has attended thousands of community meetings over the past 16 years (and I’ve led more than a few, too). Sam’s good. He allows people to vent and/or say their off-topic comments without seeming impatient. He acknowledges all comments, has staff writing them on posters so folks know they were heard. He says, “I don’t know, we’ll get back to you” rather than making stuff up to appease. He and his staff had done their homework, citing many street names and problem locations in SW Portland sprinkled throughout the presentation. He keeps the meeting moving without cutting off debate or seeming rushed. He skimmed less important pages in the Power Point, and announced he started on time and would end on time. I greatly appreciate politicians who respect the notion that my time is as valuable as theirs. I believe you will find your time well spent if you attend one of the four remaining meetings.

I don’t see the Power Point on CommissionerSam.com yet, but you can find more information and take the on-line survey there. Some highlights from the information shared last night:

Here are Sam’s responses to the “No new funding, the City wastes money” challenges. Please feel welcome to challenge these statements in the Comments. If I have time later, I’ll check some of them myself; for now, I want to get the information posted so readers have it before the meeting in SE tonight.

* The City contributed only $7m to the tram, none of which came from the Transportation bureau, all from assessments on South Waterfront property owners.

* Local funding for matches for federal and state funds to build light rail came from adjacent property owners in Local Improvement Districts.

* Lottery money can only be spent on light rail, marine, air, and freight projects, not on maintenance and safety projects.

* Only $1.6m of City funding goes annually to subsidize Streetcar operations – about one third of the total operating cost.

* The Portland Office of Transportation budget has been cut for the last seven years, with $12m total cuts.

* Of the $92m surplus over the past two years, $8m was allocated to transportation safety projects. “Most of the surplus that was not directed to transportation was used to prevent cuts in Portland Parks & Recreation and the Portland Fire Bureau”.

Note: Sam’s own chart seems to contradict that last statement. It shows a pie diagram listing the surplus going mostly to “Community Development” (44%), then transportation at 21%, only then followed by Parks & Recreation at 20%, Public Safety at 9%, and Administration taking 6% of the one-time money in Fiscal Year 2008.

OK, whipping through the rest of the presentation: We gotta lotta stuff to maintain, and need to build a lot more. Some tidbits: The City manages and maintains 167 bridges (Multnomah County is responsible for the big ones over the Willamette). Gas tax revenues are proportioned out by the state based on vehicle registration and population growth rates – since other parts of the state are growing faster than Portland, we now get only 46 cents back for every dollar in gas tax revenue generated here. The cost of transportation improvements has experienced 70% inflation (sorry, I neglected to write down over what time period), with the cost of asphalt tripling over three years.

Sam reported on a poll that showed support for road repair, maintenance and safety – but less enthusiasm for specific funding mechanisms. He said the most support, 30%, was for a local sales tax – “And I don’t believe it”, he said. Only 4% supported tolls. The poll was of 600 people, with a confidence level of plus or minus 3%.

The project list and estimated expenses are open for debate. Staff estimates of cost may be high, based on standard streets and improvements rather than less expensive greener alternatives, in some cases. In SW, one of the high priority items identified by staff is to repave the major arterials – Beaverton-Hillsdale highway, Capitol Highway, Taylor’s Ferry, Garden Home, and Multnomah Boulevard. Given the local mutterings when SW Bertha Boulevard and SW 35th were repaved recently, when other smaller streets are in way worse shape, I question this priority. It seems to follow along the “to those that have will more be given, to those who have not, even what they have will be taken away” philosophy.

Sam said one thing I particularly disliked, another I especially appreciated. He said, “One thing we want to find out through this process is what streets you want the City to make the developers put sidewalks in with their development, which streets we should not require sidewalk improvements because the neighbors don’t want them.” I think I understand the intent – to create a program where developers sometimes pay into a fund to build sidewalks on nearby busy streets, rather than putting in orphan sections of sidewalks on developed streets without them. But that is a project that needs careful definitions. One of the reasons SW has so few sidewalks is that until a very few years ago, the City routinely let the developer avoid putting them in, even on busy streets.

The part I appreciated was highlighting the fact that street improvements cost more on the west side because of topography and stormwater issues. A project costing $25,000 on the east side can cost $100,000 or more for the same improvements on slopes with clay soil. Sam’s proposal includes a subsidy to help homeowners pay for needed improvements in situations where the cost would otherwise be prohibitive. Again, that program needs to be structured carefully, perhaps with a means test to avoid City revenues going to people well able to pay themselves, and/or who choose to live in locations that perhaps shouldn’t have been developed in the first place.

The meeting attendees seemed split between bicycle advocates and those believing cyclists should register/pay. Someone suggested an annual fee to use studded tires; another wanted surcharges on TriMet buses, which Sam says cause the most damage to Portland’s roads due to having only single axels rather than the multiple tires of trucks that spread the load better. One person noted that many homeowners have already paid to improve their own streets – why should they pay for others’? “Yes, that should be considered in this process”, replied Sam.

This is getting long – lots of interesting information was packed into 2 hours. Some of the highlights of the rest:

* Nine fundraising options are listed, and three levels of funding. Several funding mechanisms could be combined.

* The big five funding options are a local gas tax (Tigard, Milwaukie, and Woodburn already have one); a Street Maintenance Fee assessed on 40% on homeowners and 60% on businesses (Lake Oswego, Tigard, Tualatin, Milwaukie, and Wilsonville all assess those); a property tax bond measure; a “Hummer tax” with a surcharge on mileage; and local parking fees. Attendees and on-line survey participants are asked to state their support/opposition for each of these five options, and to indicate how much they could tolerate for each.

* Now is the time to comment on the project list, as well as on the concept. Even if you hope the new revenue isn’t generated by a Council vote or by referendum at the polls (either could happen), you might want to look over the lists and see if you disagree or want to add proposed improvements – in case they are funded.

I urge you to attend one of the other meetings if you can, and/or review the information and complete the survey on line.