Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Tax Levy for Funding of Pavement Capital Preservation Projects0 ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Tax Levy for Funding of Pavement Capital Preservation Projects Meeting Date: December 10, 2007 Agenda Item Number: B Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Sue Cutsogeorge www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5589 ISSUE STATEMENT This work session is to discuss funding for pavement capital preservation projects with a property tax. The council is asked to provide direction for development of a measure to be placed on the ballot in 2008. BACKGROUND Council Action History In January 2007, the council formed a Council Subcommittee on Transportation Funding Solutions (the “subcommittee”) to study transportation funding options and bring back creative solutions for ade- quately funding Eugene’s transportation system for cars, trucks, bicycles and pedestrians in ways that collect funds proportionately (or equally) from residents and non-residents who use the roads, are more consistent with sustainability goals, have direct connection to use of the roads, and give incentives to those who do not have a car or use one very little. As of April 2007, the backlog of needed repair work on the transportation system had grown to nearly $170 million and was projected to grow to more than $280 million at current funding levels within the next 10 years. In order to completely eliminate the pavement preservation project backlog, it was esti- mated that nearly $27 million would be needed per year. In addition to current funding, the subcom- mittee recommended additional annual funding of $13 – $14 million, bringing total funding up to $18 million. This additional funding will stabilize the annual overlay program and reduce the reconstruction backlog. Attachment A includes an excerpt of the subcommittee’s report on the need for this funding. The subcommittee presented its report to the council on May 23, 2007. That report set out recommenda- tions to address adequate funding for the operation, maintenance and preservation of the local trans- portation system. The City Council reviewed the subcommittee recommendations and approved moving ahead with four of the five revenue sources: Capital Local Option Levy, Street and Bike Path Lighting Fee, Street Utility Fee Based on Parking Spaces and increased Local Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax. The subcommittee also recommended a solid waste collection surcharge, but the council chose not to pursue that funding source. For a summary of the council action history on the funding solutions, along with next steps for each, see Attachment B. Subcommittee Recommendation for Capital Local Option Levy The subcommittee recommended that the transportation funding package include a capital local option levy of approximately $6 million in net revenues annually. Council subsequently decided to allocate F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071210\S071210B.doc another $0.5 million to the capital local option levy instead of allocating this amount to a solid waste collection surcharge. In addition, the subcommittee recommended that $350,000 of that amount should be allocated each year for bike path capital preservation. The section of the subcommittee report that discusses this recommendation is included as Attachment C. The subcommittee considered both a capital local option levy and a long-term general obligation bond (“GO bond”) approach to funding street construction, overlays and reconstruction. Based on advice from staff, the subcommittee chose the capital local option levy as the preferred property tax funding method. One reason was that a capital local option levy would provide funding annually to match the annual spending need for pavement capital preservation activities. In addition, a capital local option levy would not incur the substantial issuance or interest costs that a long-term GO bond approach would incur. The primary downside of the capital local option levy approach is that the levy would count against the Measure 5 tax rate cap of $10 per $1000 of real market value for general government taxes. Alternative Short-Term GO Bond Approach Subsequent to the subcommittee discussions, staff has worked with the City’s bond counsel and finan- cial advisor to develop an alternative approach using short-term GO bonds. This is an approach that the City used for the recent Parks, Athletic Fields and Open Space General Obligation Bonds. This approach works when project costs are spread out over a long period of time, such as annual pavement capital preservation projects. For large building projects, like a library or city hall, this type of GO bond approach is not suitable because the full amount of the bonds are needed up front to pay for the project. Under this alternative approach, the City would enter into a line of credit type arrangement with a bank to borrow $6.5 million per year and repay that amount, with interest, when property taxes are received. This approach differs from a typical long-term GO bond issue, which carries higher debt issuance costs and higher annual interest payments. The short-term GO bond approach requires that the City pay inter- est, but that interest would be based on a short period of time, typically less than one year, and would be a lower rate than long-term bonds would require. The interest on a short-term GO bond approach would be similar to what the City encounters with a capital local option levy. For either approach, projects would occur in the summer of a given year, while the property tax revenues would not be received until December of that same year. Therefore, with a capital local option levy, the City would have to enter into an external or interfund loan to cover those costs between the construction season and the receipt of property taxes. With a short-term GO bond approach, that is taken care of automatically. The short-term GO bond approach would minimize the concerns that staff had about incurring high issuance costs and significant interest expense of the long-term bond strategy. It is estimated that one- time issuance costs for the short-term approach would be approximately $100,000, and annual interest costs would be approximately $130,000. This will, of course, depend on interest rates from year to year, but such short-term securities tend to have low rates compared to other types of longer-term borrowings. These additional issuance and interest costs would increase the tax rate by less than $0.01 per $1,000 of assessed value, which would cost the typical homeowner less than $1.50 additional per year. The issu- ance costs and interest costs on a $65 million long-term general obligation bond issue would be signifi- cantly higher than for a short-term bond approach, as shown in the chart below. The difference in cost to the typical taxpayer would be approximately $22 per year. F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071210\S071210B.doc Effect of Interest and Issuance Costs on $65 million GO Bond Measure $65 million GO Bond Long-Term Bond Short-Term Bond Difference Interest + Issuance Costs over 10 Years $17.6 million $1.4 million $16.2 million Project + Interest + Issuance Costs $82.6 million $66.4 million $16.2 million Annual Average Cost to Owner of Median- $110 $88 $22 Value Home There are other considerations in making the choice between GO bonds and a capital local option levy. Most importantly, the taxes for short-term GO bonds would not count against the Measure 5 tax rate cap, leaving that resource available for future priorities of the City and County. GO bonds should be evaluated in terms of their impact on the City’s debt ratios, but because debt would be outstanding for only a very short period of time, these short-term GO bonds would not have any significant impact on the City’s debt capacity. Finally, a GO bond approach would allow for more flexibility in generating revenue each year, in order to accelerate a high-priority project, while a capital local option levy is a fixed amount or tax rate each year. Inflation Factor In May 2007, the council directed staff to consider a property tax measure that would raise $6.5 million per year for street repairs. This amount was not adjusted for annual inflation, which will erode the ability of the measure to fund capital preservation projects in future years. In order to maintain the purchasing power of the tax measure and continue to purchase the equivalent of $6.5 million of projects in today’s terms, it would be necessary to increase the tax measure for an inflation adjustment. The amount of future inflation is not known, however, so an estimate must be made. For a capital local option levy, the council could choose to use a tax rate levy, rather than a flat dollar amount levy (either choice is available under the state statutes). In this way, as assessed value of prop- erty within the City increases, the amount generated by the capital local option levy would also increase and would help alleviate some of the inflation effects in the future. Current projections are for an aver- age assessed value increase of about 4.8% over the next six years. For a short-term GO bond measure, the bond size could also be increased to assume a certain level of future inflation. If $6.5 million of annual spending were adjusted for inflation estimated at 4.8% per year, for instance, instead of a $65 million short-term GO bond measure, the council could ask for authorization for an $81 million GO bond measure. This would increase the cost to the typical homeowner by approximately $21 per year for a total cost of $109 per year, as shown in the chart below. Comparison of Short-Term GO Bonds @ $65 Million vs. $81 Million (including inflation factor) Short-Term GO Bonds $65 million $81 million Difference Average Tax Rate per $1000 of AV $0.51 $0.62 $0.11 Average Annual Cost to Owner of Median-Value Home $88 $109 $21 Levy/Bond Restrictions The measure language for either a capital local option levy or a bond measure will contain certain restrictions, such as the amount (either annual or total), the length of time, and the types of expenditures that may be made from property tax revenues. F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071210\S071210B.doc To comply with state statutes, the projects funded with a local option levy must have an average useful life of at least the term of the levy (i.e., projects with an average useful life of at least 10 years for a 10- year levy). The City’s debt policies also require that debt repayment period not exceed the useful life of the project. For a bond measure, however, there is no limit on the number of years of project funding that the council could ask voters to fund. That would be a policy choice for the council. The subcommittee discussed the types of pavement capital preservation projects that might be paid for with a property tax approach. By state law, either type of property tax option may be used for street construction, overlays and reconstruction. In addition to these legal restrictions, spending from a local option levy or general obligation bonds will be limited by the specific language included in the measure presented to the voters to approve the funding source. Measure language may be broad or may be narrower. Specific projects may be included in the measure language, but this is not legally required. The subcommittee recommended that levy proceeds be used for pavement capital preservation projects, with $350,000 of the revenue dedicated each year to bike path capital preservation. The ballot measure language can be written to reflect this policy direction, but the language should also be flexible enough to allow spending on the planning and preparation for specific projects. In addition, measure language should allow for changes in pavement preservation project priorities over the term of the levy/bond. Because project lists can change from year to year based on pavement testing, available revenues, coun- cil direction and other factors, the ballot measure language should be flexible enough to address pave- ment preservation priorities as they arise. When staff brings additional information back to the council for this measure, examples of specific ballot measure language will be provided for feedback from the council. Timing The subcommittee recommended that the measure be placed on the May 20, 2008 ballot. To place a measure on the May 2008 ballot, the council will have to approve a ballot title no later than February 18. Following the original subcommittee direction, the council tentative agenda currently includes a follow- up work session on January 14 and a meeting on February 11 to place a measure on the May ballot. At the election sequencing work session on November 28, the council discussed whether this measure should be placed on the May or November 2008 ballot. Although the council voted to tentatively schedule this measure on the May ballot, there was significant interest in considering the November ballot as the more appropriate choice. Attachment E provides some factors to consider when deliber- ating between these two election dates. Community Education Staff has developed a nationally recognized outreach program, "Take a Closer Look," to provide infor- mation to the community about transportation goals, needs and solutions. The outreach program was developed in 2002 and substantively updated in 2006. It uses newsletters, video, web sites, neighbor- hood presentations and other outreach tools to provide information, receive input and create awareness of council-approved solutions. Staff is in the process of updating the transportation outreach communi- cation plan and will implement specific tactics such as distributing a newsletter, revising the web site, producing a video, arranging for community presentations, and other efforts beginning in early 2008. F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071210\S071210B.doc RELATED CITY POLICIES The council’s goals for 2007 include “Transportation Initiative: Develop mechanisms to adequately fund our transportation system for cars, trucks, bikes and pedestrians including maintenance and preser- vation and capital re-construction.” COUNCIL OPTIONS The council has options related to the size of the measure, type of measure, restrictions on uses of the revenue and timing of the ballot measure: ? Measure size: the council initially recommended $6.5 million of spending per year for 10 years. The City Council could choose a different annual amount or a different number of years (not to exceed 10 years for a capital local option levy). ? Type of tax measure: 10-year capital local option levy (a rate or an amount) or GO Bond measure. ? Restrictions on uses: pavement capital preservation projects, including overlays and reconstruc- tions, with a continuum from broad language with no project list to a highly specific project list with no flexibility. ? Timing of the ballot measure: based on the election sequencing discussion, the council could consider placing this issue on the ballot for either the May or the November 2008 election CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends: ? A GO bond measure to fund $81million of pavement capital preservation projects ($6.5 million plus inflation annually) over 10 years should be prepared for the November 2008 ballot. ? The bond measure should include a list of high-priority pavement capital preservation projects. It should also allow for planning and preparation activities, as well as for changes in pavement preser- vation project priorities over the life of the measure. SUGGESTED MOTION Direct the City Manager to bring a proposal to a future council work session for a GO bond measure to fund $81 million of pavement capital preservation projects over 10 years within an appropriate time- frame to place the question on the November 2008 ballot. The proposal should include ballot measure language that provides for both a list of high priority pavement capital preservation projects and appro- priate flexibility for planning activities and changing pavement capital preservation project priorities. ATTACHMENTS A.Background – Financial Need from Council Subcommittee, Final Report, May 23, 2007 B.Status of Transportation Funding Solutions C.Capital Local Option Levy Recommendation from Council Subcommittee, Final Report, May 23, 2007 D.Comparison of Property Tax Funding Approaches E.Election Timing Considerations F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071210\S071210B.doc FOR MORE INFORMATION Finance Contact: Sue Cutsogeorge, Financial Analysis Manager Telephone: 682-5589 Staff E-Mail: Sue.L.Cutsogeorge@ci.eugene.or.us F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071210\S071210B.doc ATTACHMENT A Background – Financial Need from Council Subcommittee on Transportation Funding Solutions, Final Report, May 23, 2007 F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071210\S071210B.doc Background FINANCIAL NEED éÕØÚÔÉÄjÊÉËÜÏÊÍÎËÉÜÉÔÎÏ×ÈÏÙÔÏÖ²»»¼­ º¿´´ ·²¬± ¿ ²«³¾»® ±º ¼·ºº»®»²¬ ½¿¬»¹±®·»­ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ­¬®»»¬ ­§­¬»³ ±°»®¿¬·±²­ ¿²¼ ³¿·²¬»²¿²½»ô ½¿°·¬¿´ °¿ª»³»²¬ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² °®±¶»½¬­ô ±ººó­¬®»»¬ ¾·µ» ¿²¼ °»¼»­¬®·¿² °¿¬¸ ±°»®¿¬·±²­ô ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» ¿²¼ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ­§­¬»³ °®·±®·¬§ ²»»¼­ ¬¸¿¬ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ®»½±¹²·¦»¼ ¾§ ½±«²½·´ ¾«¬ º±® ©¸·½¸ ²± ±²¹±·²¹ The majority of Road º«²¼·²¹ ­±«®½»­ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ò Û¿½¸ ±º ¬¸»­» ½¿¬»¹±®·»­ ±º Fund revenue comes ²»»¼­ ·­ ¼·­½«­­»¼ ¾»´±© ·² º«®¬¸»® ¼»¬¿·´ò from Eugene’s share of the State Highway Funding for Street Operations and Maintenance Trust Fund, which is éÕØÚÔÉÄjÊëÎÜÙ÷ÈÏÙÜÚÚÎÈÏÉÊ×ÎËÉÕØÎÍØËÜÉÔÎÏÜÏÙÐÜÔÏÉØÏÜÏÚØ derived from Oregon îðÎ×øÈÖØÏØjÊÊÉËØØÉÊÄÊÉØÐò ̸» ³¿¶±®·¬§ ±º α¿¼ Ú«²¼ motor vehicle fuel ËØÇØÏÈØÚÎÐØÊ×ËÎÐøÈÖØÏØjÊÊÕ¿®» ±º ¬¸» ͬ¿¬» Ø·¹¸©¿§ Ì®«­¬ taxes as well as state Ú«²¼ô ©¸·½¸ ·­ ¼»®·ª»¼ º®±³ Ñ®»¹±² ³±¬±® ª»¸·½´» º«»´ ¬¿¨»­ ¿­ motor vehicle ©»´´ ¿­ ­¬¿¬» ³±¬±® ª»¸·½´» ®»¹·­¬®¿¬·±² º»»­ ¿²¼ ©»·¹¸¬ó³·´» registration fees and ¬¿¨»­ò 못²«» ¹®±©¬¸ ·² ¬¸» ͬ¿¬» Ø·¹¸©¿§ Ì®«­¬ Ú«²¼ ¸¿­ ¾»»² weight-mile taxes. ®»´¿¬·ª»´§ º´¿¬ ­·²½» ÚÇððô ©¸»² ¬¸» ½·¬§ ©¿­ ®»½»·ª·²¹ ¿¾±«¬ üêòð ³·´´·±² °»® §»¿® ·² ¿´´±½¿¬·±²­ò ̸» °®±¶»½¬»¼ ®»ª»²«» º±® ÚÇðé ·­ ´»­­ ¬¸¿² üêòî ³·´´·±²ô ©¸·½¸ »¯«¿¬»­ ¬± ±²´§ ¿ íû ¹®±©¬¸ ±ª»® ¬¸» »²¬·®» ­»ª»²ó§»¿® °»®·±¼ò ̸» ­»½±²¼ ³¿¶±® ­±«®½» ±º ®»ª»²«» º±® ±²¹±·²¹ ­¬®»»¬ ±°»®¿¬·±² ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ·­ ¬¸» ¸·­¬±®·½ ݱ«²¬§ñÝ·¬§ α¿¼ ﮬ²»®­¸·° ß¹®»»³»²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ±²½» ½±²¬®·¾«¬»¼ üîòë ³·´´·±² °»® §»¿® ¿²¼ ³±®» ®»½»²¬´§ ¸¿­ °®±ª·¼»¼ ¿¾±«¬ üïòî ³·´´·±² ·² ¿²²«¿´ ­¬®»»¬ ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» º«²¼·²¹ ¬± Û«¹»²»ò ̸» ½«®®»²¬ ¿¹®»»³»²¬ »¨°·®»­ ·² Ö«²» îððéô ¿²¼ ¬¸» Þ±¿®¼ ±º ݱ«²¬§ ݱ³³·­­·±²»®­ ¸¿­ ¿¼±°¬»¼ ¿ º·ª»ó§»¿® Ý¿°·¬¿´ ׳°®±ª»³»²¬ д¿² ©¸·½¸ ¼·­½±²¬·²«»­ ¬¸» °¿®¬²»®­¸·° °¿§³»²¬­ ¬± Ô¿²» ݱ«²¬§ ½·¬·»­ ¿º¬»® ÚÇðéò ̸·­ ³»¿²­ ¬¸¿¬Û«¹»²» ©±«´¼ ´±­» ³±®» ¬¸¿² üï ³·´´·±² ·² ¿²²«¿´ ­¬®»»¬ ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» º«²¼·²¹ ¾»¹·²²·²¹ ·² ÚÇðèò ײ ¬¸» ³»¿²¬·³»ô Û«¹»²» ½±²¬·²«»­ ¬± ´±±µ º±® ±°°±®¬«²·¬·»­ ¬± ½±±°»®¿¬» ©·¬¸ Ô¿²» ݱ«²¬§ ·² ·¼»²¬·º§·²¹ ­«­¬¿·²¿¾´» ³»½¸¿²·­³­ ¿²¼ ¿¹®»»³»²¬­ º±® º«²¼·²¹ ±°»®¿¬·±²­ô ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» ¿²¼ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² øÑÓúÐ÷ ¬± ³»»¬ ¬¸» ¾®±¿¼ ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ²»»¼­ ·² ¬¸» ®»¹·±²ò ݱ­¬ ®»¼«½¬·±²­ ±º üèëðôððð ©»®» ·³°´»³»²¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» α¿¼ Ú«²¼ ·² ÚÇðìô °®·³¿®·´§ ¬¸®±«¹¸ »´·³·²¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ·²ó¸±«­» ­¬®»»¬ ±ª»®´¿§ °®±¹®¿³ ¿²¼ ±®¹¿²·¦¿¬·±²¿´ ®»­¬®«½¬«®·²¹ ¿²¼ ½±²­±´·¼¿¬·±²­ ±º Ы¾´·½ ɱ®µ­ ¼·ª·­·±²­ ¿²¼ ©±®µ ½®»©­ ®»­«´¬·²¹ ·² ¬¸» »´·³·²¿¬·±² ±º ­«°»®ª·­±®§ °±­·¬·±²­ò ̸»­» ½±­¬ ®»¼«½¬·±²­ ©»®» ·³°´»³»²¬»¼ ¿­ ¿ °¿®¬·¿´ ®»³»¼§ º±® ­¬¿¾·´·¦·²¹ ¬¸» ÑúÓ ÜÚÉÔÇÔÉÔØÊ×ÎËÉÕØÚÔÉÄjÊÊÉËØØÉ­§­¬»³ô ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¸±°» ¬¸¿¬ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ®»ª»²«» ­±«®½»­ º±® ÑúÓ ©±«´¼ »ª»²¬«¿´´§ ¾» ®»¿´·¦»¼ ¿­ ¿²ÎÈÉÚÎÐØÎ×ÉÕØÚÎÈÏÚÔÑjÊÎÏÖÎÔÏÖÆÎËÒÎÏÉËÜÏÊÍÎËÉÜÉÔÎÏ×ÈÏÙÔÏÖ ݱ«²½·´ ¿´­± °®±ª·¼»¼ ­±³» ®»´·»º ·² Ú»¾®«¿®§ îððê ¾§ ­¸·º¬·²¹ ²»¿®´§ üêëëôðð𠱺 α¿¼ Ú«²¼ °®±¹®¿³ ½±­¬­ ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± ­¬®»»¬ ¬®»»­ñ³»¼·¿² ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» ¬± ¬¸» ͬ±®³©¿¬»® Ú«²¼ò Ú·²¿´ λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­ ±º ݱ«²½·´ Í«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ±² Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ó¿§ îíô îððé ì ر©»ª»®ô ·²­«ºº·½·»²¬ ®»­±«®½»­ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ¬± ¼¿¬»ô ­«½¸ ¬¸¿¬ ¾§ ÚÇðè ©¸»² ¬¸» ݱ«²¬§ñÝ·¬§ ﮬ²»®­¸·° ¬®¿²­º»® ·­ ­½¸»¼«´»¼ ¬± ¾» ¼·­½±²¬·²«»¼ô ¬¸» α¿¼ Ú«²¼ ·­ »¨°»½¬»¼ ¬± ¸¿ª» ¿² ¿²²«¿´ ±°»®¿¬·²¹ ¼»º·½·¬ ±º ±ª»® üïòê ³·´´·±² ø¹®±©·²¹ ¬± üîòî ³·´´·±² ¾§ ÚÇïð÷ ¬± ³¿·²¬¿·² ¬¸» ½«®®»²¬ ´»ª»´ ±º ÑúÓ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ­«½¸ ¿­ ­¬®»»¬ ´·¹¸¬·²¹ô °±¬¸±´» °¿¬½¸·²¹ô ­¬®»»¬ ¬®»» ³¿·²¬»²¿²½»ô ­·¹²·²¹ ¿²¼ ­¬®·°·²¹ò ß² ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¿²²«¿´ ®»ª»²«» ­¬®»¿³ ±º üîòð ³·´´·±² ©±«´¼ ­¬¿¾·´·¦» º«²¼·²¹ º±® ±²¹±·²¹ ÑúÓ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬¸» ­·¨ó§»¿® º±®»½¿­¬ °»®·±¼ò ݸ¿®¬ ïô ¾»´±©ô ¼»°·½¬­ ¬¸·­ ¬®»²¼ ±º ¹®±©·²¹ ¿²²«¿´ α¿¼ Ú«²¼ ±°»®¿¬·²¹ ¼»º·½·¬­ô ¿­­«³·²¹ ²± ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ®»­±«®½»­ ¿®» ¼·®»½¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸±­» ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ò Chart 1 Off-street Bicycle and Pedestrian Path O&M ̸» ½·¬§ ³¿²¿¹»® ·­ °®±°±­·²¹ ¬± ­°»²¼ ¿¾±«¬ üíëðôðð𠱺 Ù»²»®¿´ Ú«²¼ ®»­±«®½»­ º±® ¬¸» ±°»®¿¬·±² ÜÏÙÐÜÔÏÉØÏÜÏÚØÎ×øÈÖØÏØjÊÎ××ÊÉËØØÉÛÔÒØܲ¼ °»¼»­¬®·¿² ­§­¬»³ ·² ÚÇðèò ß½¬·ª·¬·»­ º«²¼»¼ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸·­ ¾«¼¹»¬ ·²½´«¼» ¬¸» ½±­¬ ±º ´·¹¸¬·²¹ ¬¸» °¿¬¸­ øüìëôððð÷ô ­¬®·°·²¹ øº±¹ ´¿²»­÷ô ­©»»°·²¹ ¿²¼ ¹®¿ºº·¬· ®»³±ª¿´ô ­·¹²¿¹»ô ¿­°¸¿´¬ ¿²¼ ½±²½®»¬» ®»°¿·® ¿²¼ »³»®¹»²½§ ®»­°±²­»ô ¿­ ©»´´ ¿­ ¾·½§½´» ­¿º»¬§ô ³¿°°·²¹ ¿²¼ ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ³±¼»­ °®±¹®¿³­ò É·¬¸ ¬¸» ½«®®»²¬ ­¬¿ºº·²¹ ´»ª»´ ¿²¼ ¾«¼¹»¬ô ±²´§ ¸¿¦¿®¼±«­ ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ¿®» ®»°¿·®»¼ ±² ±ººó­¬®»»¬ ¾·µ»ñ°»¼»­¬®·¿² °¿¬¸­ò ß² »´·¹·¾´» °±®¬·±² ±º ¬¸·­ °®±°±­»¼ ²»© ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² º«²¼·²¹ °¿½µ¿¹» ½±«´¼ ¾» ¿´´±½¿¬»¼ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬¸» ¿²²«¿´ ¾«¼¹»¬ °®±½»­­ ¬± ®»´·»ª» ¬¸» Ù»²»®¿´ Ú«²¼ ±º ¬¸» ½±­¬ ±º ¬¸» ±²ó¹±·²¹ ÑúÓ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ º±® ¬¸» ±ººó­¬®»»¬ ¾·µ»ñ°»¼»­¬®·¿² °¿¬¸­ò Capital Pavement Preservation Program (PPP) ̸» íó½»²¬ ´±½¿´ ³±¬±® ª»¸·½´» º«»´ ¬¿¨ ·³°´»³»²¬»¼ ¾§ ݱ«²½·´ ·² ß«¹«­¬ îððí ¿²¼ ®¿·­»¼ ¬± ë ½»²¬­ ·² Ú»¾®«¿®§ îððë ·­ »¨°»½¬»¼ ¬± ¹»²»®¿¬» ®»ª»²«» ±º üíòì ³·´´·±² º±® ÚÇðéò ß¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¼»¼·½¿¬»¼ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² °®±¶»½¬ ®»ª»²«» º®±³ ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ®»·³¾«®­»³»²¬ ÍÜÝ­ô º®±³ ¬¸» ¬¸®»»ó §»¿® ݱ«²¬§ñÝ·¬§ ÑÌ×ß ××× ®»ª»²«» ­¸¿®·²¹ ¿¹®»»³»²¬ ¿²¼ º®±³ ±¬¸»® º«²¼ ­±«®½»­ ¸¿­ ½±²¬®·¾«¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» ®¿²¹» ±º üï ³·´´·±² °»® §»¿®ô º±® ¿ ¬±¬¿´ ±º ¿®±«²¼ üìòë ³·´´·±² ¿ §»¿® Ú·²¿´ λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­ ±º ݱ«²½·´ Í«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ±² Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ó¿§ îíô îððé ë ¼»¼·½¿¬»¼ ¬± °¿ª»³»²¬ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² ·² »¿½¸ ±º ¬¸» °¿­¬ ­»ª»®¿´ §»¿®­ò Ѫ»®¿´´ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¸¿­ ½±³°´»¬»¼ ²»¿®´§ üïîòç ³·´´·±² ·² ­¬®»»¬ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² °®±¶»½¬ ©±®µ ­·²½» îððíô ©·¬¸ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ½±²¬®¿½¬­ ·² °®±½»­­ò ̸·­ §»¿®ô ³±®» ¬¸¿² ïéòì ´¿²» ³·´»­ ±º ­´«®®§ ­»¿´ °®±¶»½¬­ ¿²¼ îðòë ´¿²» ³·´»­ ¬¸ ±º ®»¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±² °®±¶»½¬­ ¿®» ­½¸»¼«´»¼ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿§ ±º °±®¬·±²­ ±º ïè ߪ»²«»ô ݸ¿³¾»®­ ͬ®»»¬ ¿²¼ Þ¿·´»§ Ø·´´ α¿¼ò ײ ­°·¬» ±º ¬¸»­» ¿½½±³°´·­¸³»²¬­ô ¬¸» ¾¿½µ´±¹ ±º ²»»¼»¼ ®»°¿·® ©±®µ ½±²¬·²«»­ ¬± ¹®±© ·² ¬¸» º¿½» ±º ®·­·²¹ ½±²­¬®«½¬·±² ½±­¬­ ¿²¼ ·²­«ºº·½·»²¬ ®»ª»²«»­ò ɸ»² ¬¸» Û«¹»²» Þ«¼¹»¬ ݱ³³·¬¬»» Ý·¬·¦»² Í«¾½±³³·¬¬»» °®»­»²¬»¼ ·¬­ ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ­§­¬»³ º«²¼·²¹ ®»°±®¬ ¬± ¬¸» ½±«²½·´ ·² ´¿¬» îððïô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ©¿­ º¿½·²¹ ¿² »­¬·³¿¬»¼ üêé ³·´´·±² ¾¿½µ´±¹ ·² °¿ª»³»²¬ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² ©±®µô ¿­ ½±²º·®³»¼ ¾§ ¿² ·²¼»°»²¼»²¬ ½±²­«´¬¿²¬ò Þ§ ¬¸» ¬·³» ¬¸» ½±«²½·´ ·³°´»³»²¬»¼ ¬¸» îó½»²¬ º«»´ ¬¿¨ ·²½®»¿­» ·² »¿®´§ îððëô ¬¸¿¬ ¾¿½µ´±¹ ¸¿¼ ¹®±©² ¬± ²»¿®´§ üçì ³·´´·±²ò ß­ ±º ß°®·´ îððéô ¬¸» »­¬·³¿¬»¼ ½±­¬ ±º ¬¸¿¬ ¾¿½µ´±¹ ·­ ²»¿®´§ üïéð ³·´´·±² ¿²¼ô ¿¬ ½«®®»²¬ º«²¼·²¹ ´»ª»´­ º±® ®»°¿·® ©±®µô ·­ °®±¶»½¬»¼ ¬± ¹®±© ¬± üîèî ³·´´·±² ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ²»¨¬ ï𠧻¿®­ò ̸·­ º«²¼·²¹ ­½»²¿®·± ·­ ¼»°·½¬»¼ ·² ݸ¿®¬ îô ¾»´±©ò Chart 2 ̸» ¹®±©¬¸ ·² ¬¸» ²»© ¾¿½µ´±¹ ½±­¬ »­¬·³¿¬»­ ·­ ¬¸» ®»­«´¬ ±º ¬©± °®·³¿®§ ¼®·ª»®­ò ̸» º·®­¬ ¼®·ª»® ·­ ¿ ½±²¬·²«·²¹´§ ·²¿¼»¯«¿¬» º·²¿²½·¿´ ·²ª»­¬³»²¬ ·² ¬¸» ¾¿½µ´±¹ ±º ±ª»®´¿§ °®±¶»½¬­ô ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ®»­«´¬ ¬¸¿¬ ³±®» °®±¶»½¬­ ¸¿ª» º¿´´»² ×ËÎÐÉÕØmÎÇØËÑÜÄÍËØÊØËÇÜÉÔÎÏlÚÜÉØÖÎËÄÔÏÉÎÉÕØÐÈÚÕ ÐÎËØØÅÍØÏÊÔÇØmËØÚÎÏÊÉËÈÚÉl½¿¬»¹±®§ ±º ®»°¿·®­ô ­·³°´§ ¾»½¿«­» ¬¸» ½·¬§ ¸¿­ ¾»»² «²¿¾´» ¬± ¿¬¬»²¼ ¬± ¬¸±­» ®»°¿·®­ ©¸»² ¬¸»§ ©»®» ­¬·´´ ½¿²¼·¼¿¬»­ º±® ¬¸» ´»­­ »¨°»²­·ª» °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² ¬®»¿¬³»²¬­ò ߬ ¬¸» ­¿³» ¬·³»ô ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿§ ¾¿½µ´±¹ ¸¿­ ½±²¬·²«»¼ ¬± ¹®±© ¿­ °¿ª»³»²¬­ º¿´´ º®±³ ¬¸» Ú·²¿´ λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­ ±º ݱ«²½·´ Í«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ±² Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ó¿§ îíô îððé ê mÏÎÉËØÜÉÐØÏÉÏØØÙØÙlÚÜÉØÖÎËÄÉβ»»¼·²¹ ±ª»®´¿§ò ̸» ­»½±²¼ ­·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ¼®·ª»® ·² ¬¸» »­½¿´¿¬·²¹ ½±­¬ »­¬·³¿¬»­ ·­ ¬¸» »¨¬®¿±®¼·²¿®§ ³¿®µ»¬°´¿½» °®»­­«®»­ ¬¸¿¬ ¸¿ª» ½¿«­»¼ ­·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ·²½®»¿­»­ ·² «²·¬ ½±­¬­ ±ª»® °®·±® §»¿®­ù »­¬·³¿¬»­ò ײ½®»¿­·²¹ º«»´ ¿²¼ »²»®¹§ ½±­¬­ô ëðûó°´«­ ·²½®»¿­»­ ·² ¬¸» ½±­¬ ±º ¿­°¸¿´¬ô ¿²¼ ·²½®»¿­·²¹ ¹´±¾¿´ ¼»³¿²¼ º±® ½±²½®»¬» ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ½±²­¬®«½¬·±² ³¿¬»®·¿´­ ¸¿ª» ®»­«´¬»¼ ·² «²·¬ ½±­¬­ ±² ½»®¬¿·² ­¬®»»¬ °®±¶»½¬­ ¬± »­½¿´¿¬» ¿­ ³«½¸ ¿­ éðû ±ª»® ¬¸» °¿­¬ ¬©± §»¿®­ò ׬ ·­ »­¬·³¿¬»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ·¬ ©±«´¼ ¬¿µ» ¿ ¬±¬¿´ ·²ª»­¬³»²¬ ·² ¬¸» ÐÐÐ °®±¹®¿³ ±º ²»¿®´§ üîé ³·´´·±² °»® §»¿®ô ©·¬¸ ²»© º«²¼·²¹ ¾»¹·²²·²¹ ·² ÚÇðçô ¬± ½±³°´»¬»´§ »´·³·²¿¬» ¬¸» ®»½±²­¬®«½¬·±² °®±¶»½¬ ¾¿½µ´±¹ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ²»¨¬ ï𠧻¿®­ò ر©»ª»®ô ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ °¿ª»³»²¬ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² º«²¼·²¹ ±º üïí ³·´´·±² ¬± üïì ³·´´·±² °»® §»¿® ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ­«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ø¾®·²¹·²¹ ¬¸» ¬±¬¿´ ¿²²«¿´ ÐÐÐ º«²¼·²¹ ´»ª»´ «° ¬± ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ üïè ³·´´·±²÷ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ½±«´¼ º«´´§ º«²¼ ¿²¼ ­¬¿¾·´·¦» ¬¸» ¿²²«¿´ ±ª»®´¿§ °®±¹®¿³ ¿²¼ ¾»¹·² ¬± ³¿µ» ½±²­·¼»®¿¾´» °®±¹®»­­ ·² ®»¼«½·²¹ ¬¸» ­«¾­¬¿²¬·¿´ ½±³³«²·¬§ ´·¿¾·´·¬§ ®»°®»­»²¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» ¾¿½µ´±¹ ±º ®»½±²­¬®«½¬·±² °®±¶»½¬­ô ¼»°·½¬»¼ ·² ݸ¿®¬ íô ¾»´±©ò Off-street Bicycle and Pedestrian Path Capital Pavement Preservation пª»³»²¬ ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ±² ±ººó­¬®»»¬ ¾·½§½´» ¿²¼ °»¼»­¬®·¿² °¿¬¸­ ¿®» ²±¬ÚÈËËØÏÉÑÄÉËÜÚÒØÙÔÏÉÕØÚÔÉÄjÊ °¿ª»³»²¬ ³¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ­§­¬»³ò ̸»®»º±®»ô ¬¸»®» ·­ ²± »­¬·³¿¬» ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» º±® ¬¸» ¬±¬¿´ ½±­¬ ±º ¿¼¼®»­­·²¹ ¬¸» ¾¿½µ´±¹ ±º °¿ª»³»²¬ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² ²»»¼­ ±² ¬¸»­» ±ººó­¬®»»¬ °¿¬¸­ò λ½»²¬ °®±¶»½¬­ ¿®» º±½«­»¼ ±² ®»½±²­¬®«½¬·²¹ º¿·´»¼ ­»½¬·±²­ ±º ¿­°¸¿´¬·½ ½±²½®»¬» °¿¬¸©¿§­ò ̸» ®»½±²­¬®«½¬»¼ °¿¬¸©¿§­ ©·´´ ·²½´«¼» ¬¸» Ú»®² η¼¹» п¬¸ ¾»¬©»»² Ý·¬§ Ê·»© ¿²¼ ݸ¿³¾»®­ øüíçïôððð÷ô Ò±®¬¸¾¿²µ п¬¸ ¾»¬©»»² ¬¸» Ù®»»²©¿§ Þ®·¼¹» ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ú»®®§ ͬ®»»¬ Þ®·¼¹» øüèçíôððð÷ ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ù¿®¼»² É¿§ п¬¸ ¾»¬©»»² Ù¿®¼»² É¿§ ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ý¿²±» Ý¿²¿´ øüìèëôððð÷ò ̸» °®±¶»½¬­ ¿®» º«²¼»¼ ¾§ ¿ ½±³¾·²¿¬·±² ±º º»¼»®¿´ Í«®º¿½» Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ю±¹®¿³óË®¾¿² øÍÌÐóË÷ º«²¼­ ¿´´±½¿¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ó»¬®±°±´·¬¿² б´·½§ ݱ³³·¬¬»» øÓÐÝ÷ ¿²¼ ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ­§­¬»³ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½¸¿®¹»­ò Í·²½» ¬¸»­» °®±¶»½¬­ ©»®» º«²¼»¼ô ¬¸» ½·¬§ ¸¿­ ­¸·º¬»¼ ·¬­ º±½«­ º±® ÍÌÐóË º«²¼­ º®±³ ¾·µ» °¿¬¸­ ¬± ¬¸» ¿®¬»®·¿´ ¿²¼ ½±´´»½¬±® Ú·²¿´ λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­ ±º ݱ«²½·´ Í«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ±² Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ó¿§ îíô îððé é ­¬®»»¬ ­§­¬»³ò Ü«®·²¹ ¬¸» ³±­¬ ®»½»²¬ ¿´´±½¿¬·±² ±º ÍÌÐóË º«²¼­ ¾§ ¬¸» ÓÐÝô ¬¸» ½·¬§ ­«¾³·¬¬»¼ ­¬®»»¬ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² °®±¶»½¬­ ­»´»½¬»¼ º®±³ ¿ ´·­¬ ±º ½¿²¼·¼¿¬» ­¬®»»¬­ ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ½±«²½·´ò ß² »´·¹·¾´» °±®¬·±² ±º ¬¸·­ °®±°±­»¼ ²»© ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² º«²¼·²¹ °¿½µ¿¹» ½±«´¼ ¾» «­»¼ ¬± °®±ª·¼» ¿ ­¬¿¾´» ­±«®½» ±º ®»ª»²«» º±® ¿ °¿ª»³»²¬ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² °®±¹®¿³ º±® ¬¸» ±ººó­¬®»»¬ ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ­§­¬»³ò Other System Needs Þ»§±²¼ ¬¸» ÑÓúÐ º«²¼·²¹ ²»»¼­ º±® ­¬®»»¬­ ¿²¼ ±ººó­¬®»»¬ ¾·µ» °¿¬¸­ô ¬¸» ­«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ¿´­± ®»½±¹²·¦»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸»®» ·­ ´·¬¬´» ±® ²± º«²¼·²¹ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ¬± ®»­°±²¼ ¬± ²»»¼­ ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± ±¬¸»® ½±³°±²»²¬­ ±º ¬¸» ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ­§­¬»³ ­«½¸ ¿­ ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ¬®¿ºº·½ ½¿´³·²¹ °®±¶»½¬­ô ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ­¬®»»¬ ´·¹¸¬·²¹ô ®»¬®±º·¬¬·²¹ ±º ¿«¼·¾´» °»¼»­¬®·¿² ­·¹²¿´­ô °®»­»®ª·²¹ ¿²¼ »¨°¿²¼·²¹ ¬¸» ­·¼»©¿´µ ­§­¬»³ô ¿²¼ »¨°¿²¼·²¹ ¬¸» ´±½¿´ ±²ó ¿²¼ ±ººó­¬®»»¬ ¾·½§½´·²¹ ­§­¬»³ò ß °±®¬·±² ±º ¬¸» °®±½»»¼­ º®±³ ¬¸·­ °®±°±­»¼ ²»© º«²¼·²¹ °¿½µ¿¹» ½±«´¼ ¾» ¿´´±½¿¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸±­» ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±²ó®»´¿¬»¼ °®·±®·¬§ ²»»¼­ ¬¸¿¬ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ®»½±¹²·¦»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ½±«²½·´ ¿²¼ ¾«¼¹»¬ ½±³³·¬¬»» ¾«¬ º±® ©¸·½¸ ²± ±²¹±·²¹ º«²¼·²¹ ­±«®½» ¸¿­ §»¬ ¾»»² ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ò ß²²«¿´ ¾«¼¹»¬ ½±³³·¬¬»» ¼»´·¾»®¿¬·±²­ ½±«´¼ ¼·®»½¬ ¬¸» °®·±®·¬§ «­»­ ±º ¬¸±­» »´·¹·¾´» ®»­±«®½»­ ·² ¿²§ ¹·ª»² º·­½¿´ §»¿®ò ümêÈÐÐÜËÄÎ×èÏ×ÈÏÙØÙéËÜÏÊÍÎËÉÜÉÔÎÏêÄÊÉØÐïØØÙÊÜÏÙëØÚÎÐÐØÏÙØÙ÷ÈÏÙÔÏÖêÎÑÈÉÔÎÏÊl ©¿­ ¼»ª»´±°»¼ ¿²¼ ®»º·²»¼ ·² ¬¸» ½±«®­» ±º ­«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ¼·­½«­­·±²­ ¿²¼ ·­ °®»­»²¬»¼ ¿­ ß°°»²¼·¨ ß ±º ¬¸·­ ®»°±®¬ ¿­ ¿ ®»½¿° ±º ¬¸±­» ¼·­½«­­·±²­ ¿²¼ ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­ò A BRIEF COUNCIL HISTORY RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ײ ѽ¬±¾»® îððïô ¬¸» Ý·¬·¦»² Þ«¼¹»¬ Í«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ±² Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ͧ­¬»³ Ú«²¼·²¹ °®»­»²¬»¼ ·¬­ Ú·²¿´ λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² ±² Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ú«²¼·²¹ ×­­«»­ô ©¸·½¸ ½±²¬¿·²»¼ ¿³±²¹ ·¬­ ½±²½´«­·±²­ ¬¸» ÜÊÊØËÉÔÎÏÉÕÜÉmôÏÉÕغ¿½» ±º °®±¶»½¬»¼ ÑúÓ ­¸±®¬º¿´´­ ¿²¼ ­»®ª·½» ®»¼«½¬·±²­ ¾»¹·²²·²¹ ·² ÚÇðíô »²­«®·²¹ ¿¼»¯«¿¬» º«²¼·²¹ º±® ¬¸» ±°»®¿¬·±² ÜÏÙÐÜÔÏÉØÏÜÏÚØÜÚÉÔÇÔÉÔØÊÎ×ÉÕØÚÔÉÄjÊÉËÜÏÊÍÎËÉÜÉÔÎÏÊÄÊÉØÐÔÊÜÛÊÎÑÈÉØÑÄØÊÊØÏÉÔÜÑlüÉÉÕÜÉÉÔÐØ ¬¸» Ý·¬·¦»² Þ«¼¹»¬ Í«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ¿´­± °®»­»²¬»¼ ·¬­ ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ½±«²½·´ ·³°´»³»²¬ ¿ ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² º«²¼·²¹ °¿½µ¿¹» ½±²­·­¬·²¹ ±º ¿ ½±³¾·²¿¬·±² ´±½¿´ ³±¬±® ª»¸·½´» º«»´ ¬¿¨ ¿²¼ ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ­§­¬»³ ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» º»» º±® ¬¸» °«®°±­» ±º ¹»²»®¿¬·²¹ ¿² ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ üç ³·´´·±² ÜÏÏÈÜÑÑÄÉÎÜÙÙËØÊÊÉÕØÚÔÉÄjʽ®·¬·½¿´ ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ­§­¬»³ º«²¼·²¹ ²»»¼­ô ©¸·½¸ ·²½´«¼»¼ üèòë ³·´´·±² º±® ¬¸» ¾¿½µ´±¹ ±º ®±¿¼ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² ©±®µ °´«­ ¿² ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ üìîëôðð𠺱® ±ººó­¬®»»¬ ¾·µ» °¿¬¸­ò Ѳ Ü»½»³¾»® çô îððîô ¬¸» ½±«²½·´ ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¿² ±®¼·²¿²½» »­¬¿¾´·­¸·²¹ ¿ ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ­§­¬»³ ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» º»» øÌÍÓÚ÷ò Ѳ Ö¿²«¿®§ îéô îððíô ¿ ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ®»ª»²«» ³»¿­«®»ô ¬¸» ´±½¿´ ÐÎÉÎËÇØÕÔÚÑØ×ÈØÑÉÜÅm×ÈØÑÉÜÅlÆÜÊÜÍÍ˱ª»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ½±«²½·´ò Ѳ Í»°¬»³¾»® èô îððíô ¬¸» ½±«²½·´ ª±¬»¼ ¬± ®»°»¿´ ¬¸» ÌÍÓÚ ±®¼·²¿²½»ô ½·¬·²¹ ¬¸» ®»°»¿´ ¾§ Í°®·²¹º·»ÑÙúÔÉÄúÎÈÏÚÔÑÎ×ÉÕÜÉÚÔÉÄjÊ ÌÍÓÚ ¿²¼ ½±²½»®²­ ¿¾±«¬ »¯«·¬§ ¾»¬©»»² ¬¸» ¬©± ½·¬·»­ô ¿­ ©»´´ ¿­ ½±²½»®²­ ®¿·­»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Û«¹»²» ݸ¿³¾»® ±º ݱ³³»®½» ¿¾±«¬ ¬¸» ­¬®«½¬«®» ¿²¼ ·³°¿½¬ ±º ¬¸» ÌÍÓÚ ±² Û«¹»²» ¾«­·²»­­»­ò ̸» ½±«²½·´ ¿´­± ½·¬»¼ ½±²¬·²«»¼ ¸±°» º±® ½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·ª» ­±´«¬·±²­ ©·¬¸ °¿®¬²»® ¿¹»²½·»­ô ©·¬¸ °¿®¬·½«´¿® ®»º»®»²½» ¬± «°½±³·²¹ ¼·­½«­­·±²­ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ô¿²» Þ±¿®¼ ±º ݱ«²¬§ ݱ³³·­­·±²»®­ ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ´±½¿´ Ú·²¿´ λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­ ±º ݱ«²½·´ Í«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ±² Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ó¿§ îíô îððé è ±ºº·½·¿´­ò ß îó½»²¬ ·²½®»¿­» ¬± ¬¸» ³±¬±® ª»¸·½´» º«»´ ¬¿¨ ©¿­ ¿°°®±ª»¼ ·² Ö¿²«¿®§ îððëô ¿´±²¹ ©·¬¸ ¿ ­«²­»¬ °®±ª·­·±² ¬¸¿¬ ©±«´¼ ½¿«­» ¬¸» ¬¿¨ ¬± ®»ª»®¬ ¬± í ½»²¬­ °»® ¹¿´´±² ±² Ú»¾®«¿®§ îçô îððèò ݱ«²½·´ ¿¼¼»¼ ¬¸» ­«²­»¬ °®±ª·­·±² ·² ¬¸» ¬¸·®¼ §»¿® ±º ¬¸» ·²½®»¿­»ô ½·¬·²¹ ¬¸» ¸±°» ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸®»» §»¿®­ ©±«´¼ ¿´´±© ­«ºº·½·»²¬ ¬·³» ¬± ½±³°´»¬» ¿ ½±³°®»¸»²­·ª» ®»ª·»© ±º ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» º«²¼·²¹ ±°¬·±²­ ·² ¬¸» »ºº±®¬ ¬± ¼»ª»´±° ¿ ³±®» °»®³¿²»²¬ º«²¼·²¹ ­¬®¿¬»¹§ º±® ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ­§­¬»³ ²»»¼­ò Ѳ Í»°¬»³¾»® îêô îððëô ¬¸» ½±«²½·´ ®»ª·»©»¼ ¿²¼ ¼·­½«­­»¼ ¬¸» º·²¿²½·¿´ ­¬¿¬«­ ¿²¼ º«²¼ º±®»½¿­¬ º±® ¬¸» α¿¼ Ú«²¼ò Þ¿­»¼ ±² ¬¸¿¬ ¼·­½«­­·±²ô ¬¸» ½±«²½·´ ¼·®»½¬»¼ ¬¸» ½·¬§ ³¿²¿¹»® ¬± ¼»ª»´±° ¿ ÚÇðé α¿¼ Ú«²¼ ¾«¼¹»¬ ¿¬ ¬¸» ½«®®»²¬ ­»®ª·½» ´»ª»´ ¿²¼ ¬± ¾®·²¹ ¾¿½µ ¿ °®±°±­¿´ º±® ¿ ²»© ®»ª»²«» º«²¼·²¹ °¿½µ¿¹» ©¸·½¸ ©±«´¼ ²±¬ ±²´§ ¿¼¼®»­­ ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬»¼ ±²¹±·²¹ ±°»®¿¬·²¹ ¼»º·½·¬ ·² ­¬®»»¬ ±°»®¿¬·±²­ ¿²¼ ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» ¾«¬ ©±«´¼ ¿´­± ¹»²»®¿¬» ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ®»ª»²«» ¬± ¾» ¼»¼·½¿¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» ¾¿½µ´±¹ ±º «²º«²¼»¼ °®±¶»½¬­ ·² ¬¸» °¿ª»³»²¬ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² °®±¹®¿³ò Ѳ Ú»¾®«¿®§ îéô îððêô ¬¸» ½±«²½·´ ®»ª·»©»¼ ¿²¼ ¼·­½«­­»¼ ¿ ²«³¾»® ±º °±¬»²¬·¿´ ®»ª»²«» ­¬®¿¬»¹·»­ ¬± ¿¼¼®»­­ «²³»¬ ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ­§­¬»³ º«²¼·²¹ ²»»¼­ò ߬ ¬¸¿¬ ­»­­·±²ô ¬¸» ½±«²½·´ ¼·®»½¬»¼ ¬¸» ½·¬§ ³¿²¿¹»® ¬± ¾®·²¹ ¾¿½µ ¿ °®±°±­¿´ º±® ®»»­¬¿¾´·­¸·²¹ ¬¸» °®»ª·±«­´§ ®»°»¿´»¼ ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ­§­¬»³ ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» º»» øÌÍÓÚ÷ ¬± ¿¼¼®»­­ ²±¬ ±²´§ ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬»¼ ±²¹±·²¹ ±°»®¿¬·²¹ ¼»º·½·¬­ ·² α¿¼ Ú«²¼ ­¬®»»¬ ±°»®¿¬·±²­ ¿²¼ ³¿·²¬»²¿²½»ô ¾«¬ ¿´­± ¬± ¹»²»®¿¬» ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ®»ª»²«» ¬± ¿¼¼®»­­ ¬¸» ®»³¿·²·²¹ ¿²²«¿´ º«²¼·²¹ ¹¿°­ ·² ¬¸» °¿ª»³»²¬ ¿²¼ ±ººó­¬®»»¬ ¾·µ» °¿¬¸ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² °®±¹®¿³­ò ײ ¬¸» ½±«®­» ±º ·¬­ ÚÇðé ¾«¼¹»¬ ¼»´·¾»®¿¬·±²­ô ¬¸» ¾«¼¹»¬ ½±³³·¬¬»» ¿¼¼»¼ ¿ ±²»ó¬·³» º«²¼·²¹ ¿´´±½¿¬·±² ±º üïòë ³·´´·±² ¬± ¬¸» °¿ª»³»²¬ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² ½¿°·¬¿´ ¾«¼¹»¬ º±® ÚÇðé ¬± ¾» º±½«­»¼ ±² ±ª»®´¿§ °®±¶»½¬­ º±® ­¬®»»¬­ ¬¸¿¬ ©±«´¼ ±¬¸»®©·­» º¿´´ ·²¬± ¬¸» ®»½±²­¬®«½¬ ½¿¬»¹±®§ ·² ¿ ­«¾­»¯«»²¬ §»¿®ò Ѳ Ò±ª»³¾»® îéô îððêô ½±«²½·´ ½±²­·¼»®»¼ ¿¼±°¬·±² ±º ¿² ±®¼·²¿²½» »­¬¿¾´·­¸·²¹ ¿ ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ­§­¬»³ ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» º»» øÌÍÓÚ÷ º±® ¬¸» °«®°±­» ±º ¹»²»®¿¬·²¹ ®»ª»²«» ¬± ³»»¬ ¬¸» ±°»®¿¬·±²¿´ô ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» ¿²¼ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² ²»»¼­ ±º ¬¸» ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ­§­¬»³ò ߬ ¬¸¿¬ ³»»¬·²¹ô ½±«²½·´ ª±¬»¼ ¬± °±­¬°±²» ¿½¬·±² ±² ¿¼±°¬·±² ±º ¬¸» °®±°±­»¼ ±®¼·²¿²½» ¿²¼ô ·²­¬»¿¼ô ¼·®»½¬»¼ ¬¸» ½·¬§ ³¿²¿¹»® ¬± ­½¸»¼«´» ¿ ©±®µ ­»­­·±² ¬± ½±²­·¼»® ¿¼¼·¬·±²­ ±® ¿´¬»®¿¬·±²­ ¬± ¬¸» °®±°±­»¼ º«²¼·²¹ ­¬®¿¬»¹§ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿ ÌÍÓÚô ¿ ¹¿­ ¬¿¨ô ¿ ¾±²¼ ³»¿­«®» ¿²¼ ¿ ½±³³«¬»® ¬¿¨ò FORMATION OF COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE Subcommittee Charge ߬ ¿ ©±®µ ­»­­·±² ±² Ö¿²«¿®§ îîô îððéô ¬¸» ½±«²½·´ ¼·®»½¬»¼ ¬¸» ½·¬§ ³¿²¿¹»® ÉÎmÛËÔÏÖÛÜÚÒÚËØÜÉÔÇØ ­±´«¬·±²­ º±® ¿¼»¯«¿¬»´§ º«²¼·²¹ ±«® ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ­§­¬»³ º±® ½¿®­ô ¬®«½µ­ô ¾·µ»­ ¿²¼ °»¼»­¬®·¿²­ ¬¸¿¬æ ݱ´´»½¬ º«²¼­ °®±°±®¬·±²¿¬»´§ ø±® »¯«¿´´§÷ º®±³ ®»­·¼»²¬­ ¿²¼ ²±²ó®»­·¼»²¬­ ¬¸¿¬ «­» ±«® ®±¿¼­ô ß®» ³±®» ½±²­·­¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ ±«® ­«­¬¿·²¿¾·´·¬§ ¹±¿´­ô Ø¿ª» ³±®» ¼·®»½¬ ½±²²»½¬·±² ¬± ¬¸» «­» ±º ¬¸» ®±¿¼­ ø´·µ» ¿ ½¿®¾±² ¬¿¨ ±® ¹¿®¾¿¹» ¬®«½µ º»»­÷ô ¿²¼ Ù·ª» ®»¾¿¬»­ ±® ·²½»²¬·ª»­ ¬± ¬¸±­» ©¸± ¼± ²±¬ ¸¿ª» ¿ ½¿® ±® «­» ±²» ª»®§ ´·¬¬´»ò Subcommittee Membership Ú«®¬¸»® ¼·­½«­­·±² ¾§ ¬¸» ½±«²½·´ ´»¼ ¬± ¬¸» º±®³¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ݱ«²½·´ Í«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ±² Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ú«²¼·²¹ ͱ´«¬·±²­ô ½±³°®·­»¼ ±º ½±«²½·´±®­ Þ±²²§ Þ»¬¬³¿²ô ݸ®·­ Ю§±®ô Ö»²²·º»® ͱ´±³±² ¿²¼ ß´¿² Æ»´»²µ¿ò Ѳ Ó¿§ ïðô îððéô ݱ«²½·´±® Þ»¬¬³¿² ®»¯«»­¬»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¸»® ²¿³» ¾» ®»³±ª»¼ º®±³ ¬¸» º·²¿´ ®»°±®¬ ¿²¼ ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­ò Í«¾­»¯«»²¬´§ô ¬¸» ¬¸®»» ®»³¿·²·²¹ ½±«²½·´±®­ ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¬¸» º·²¿´ ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­ò Ú·²¿´ λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­ ±º ݱ«²½·´ Í«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ±² Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ó¿§ îíô îððé ç ATTACHMENT B Status of Transportation Funding Solutions Subcommittee Subcommittee Recommended Council Actions to Date Current Status/Next Steps Recommendation Amount Seek voter approval of a capital Annual net revenue of $6 million May 23 – Approved subcom-This is the topic of a work session local option levy, including per year mittee recommendation; increased on December 10, 2007; potential approximately $350,000 per year Estimated cost to average amount to $6.5 million due to ballot measure in May or for capital bike path preservation homeowner of $80/year elimination of solid waste November 2008 collection surcharge proposal Establish a street and bike path Annual net revenue of $850,000 May 23 – Approved sub-Staff will bring back more lighting fee Estimated cost to average committee recommendation information in early 2008 household of $1.50 per month November 21 – Directed con- tinued staff work on this option Establish a street utility fee based Annual net revenue of $6 million May 23 – Approved subcom-Staff will bring back more on parking, with $150,000 per Estimated cost to average mittee recommendation; increased information in early 2008 year dedicated to funding traffic household of $4.50 to $5 per amount to $6.5 million due to calming measures month elimination of the solid waste collection surcharge proposal November 21 – Directed con- tinued staff work on this option Increase local motor vehicle fuel Annual net revenue of $2 million May 23 – Approved November 6 – 3 cent increase tax Cost to purchaser of gas/diesel of subcommittee recommendation was not approved by voters 3 cents per gallon August 15-Submitted tax increase January 14 – Scheduled Public to voters on November 2007 Hearing on repealing or extending ballot the sunset January 28 – Scheduled action on ordinance repealing or extending the sunset Establish a solid waste collection Annual net revenue of $1 million May 23 – Did not accept No further action on this item, surcharge Estimated cost to average subcommittee recommendation due to lack of council majority residential customer of $1 per support month F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071210\S071210B.doc ATTACHMENT C Capital Local Option Levy Recommendation from Council Subcommittee on Transportation Funding Solutions Final Report, May 23, 2007 F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071210\S071210B.doc Seek Voter Approval of a Capital Local Option Levy Target net annual revenue of $6 million Estimated cost to average homeowner of $80 per year ß ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª§ ·­ ¿ ¬»³°±®¿®§ °®±°»®¬§ ¬¿¨ ¬¸¿¬ ·­ ´»ª·»¼ ±² ¿´´ ¬¿¨¿¾´» °®±°»®¬§ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ´·³·¬­ò ̸» Ý·¬§ ¸¿­ ²±¬ °®±°±­»¼ ¿²§ ½¿°·¬¿´ ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª·»­ ·² ¬¸» °¿­¬ò ß ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª§ ¼±»­ ÏÎÉÚËØÜÉØÙØÛÉÜÏÙÔÊÏÎÉÜmÛÎÏÙléÕØúÔÉĽ±«´¼ ·³°±­» ¿ ½¿°·¬¿´ ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª§ º±® «° ¬± ï𠧻¿®­ò ̸·­ ¬¿¨ ©±«´¼ ¹»²»®¿¬» ½¿°·¬¿´ º«²¼·²¹ ±² ¿ °¿§ó¿­ó§±«ó¹± ¾¿­·­ò ̸» ´»ª§ ³¿§ ¾» ßà ­¬®«½¬«®»¼ ¿­ ¿ «²·º±®³ ¿²²«¿´ ¿³±«²¬ ±® ¿ ­°»½·º·½ ¬¿¨ ®¿¬»ò ̸» ´»ª»´ ±º ®»ª»²«» ¹»²»®¿¬»¼ ©±«´¼ ¾» ­¬¿¬·½ ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» ¬»®³ ±º ¬¸» ´»ª§ «²¼»® ¿ «²·º±®³ ¿³±«²¬ ´»ª§ ±® ½±«´¼ ·²½®»¿­» ±® ¼»½®»¿­» »¿½¸ §»¿® ¼»°»²¼·²¹ ±² ¬¸» ½¸¿²¹» ·² ¿­­»­­»¼ ª¿´«» ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ «²¼»® ¿ ¬¿¨ ®¿¬» ´»ª§ò Ô±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª·»­ ¿®» ­«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¬¸» üïð °»® üïôðð𠱺 ®»¿´ ³¿®µ»¬ ª¿´«» ¬¿¨ ®¿¬» ½¿° º±® ¿´´ ¹»²»®¿´ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬­ «²¼»® Ó»¿­«®» ëò ˲¼»® Ó»¿­«®» ëðô ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª·»­ ¿®» ¬¸» º·®­¬ ¬± ¾» ®»¼«½»¼ ·² ¬¸» »ª»²¬ ±º ¬¿¨ ®¿¬» ½±³°®»­­·±²ò ̸·­ ³»¿²­ ¬¸¿¬ ·º ¬¸» ½±³¾·²»¼ ¬±¬¿´ ¬¿¨ ´»ª§ º±® ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿°°·²¹ ¹»²»®¿´ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬­ »¨½»»¼­ ¬¸» Ó»¿­«®» ë ½¿°ô ¿²§ ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª·»­ ©±«´¼ ¾» °®±°±®¬·±²¿´´§ ®»¼«½»¼ «²¬·´ ¬¸» ¬¿¨ ®¿¬» ´·³·¬ ·­ ­¿¬·­º·»¼ò ײ ÚÇðéô ¬¸» ¹»²»®¿´ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬ ¬¿¨ ®¿¬» ©¿­ üçòïì °»® üïôðððô ¿²¼ ·­ °®±¶»½¬»¼ ¬± ¹± ¼±©² ·² ÚÇðè ©¸»² ¬¸» §±«¬¸ ´»ª§ »¨°·®»­ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ´·¾®¿®§ ´»ª§ ·­ ®»¼«½»¼ ¾§ ¸¿´ºò ̸» ®¿¬» ·­ »¨°»½¬»¼ ¬± ¹± ¼±©² ¿¹¿·² ·² ÚÇïï ©¸»² ¬¸» «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ­°»½·¿´ ´»ª§ ¬± °¿§ º±® ¬¸» ´·¾®¿®§ ¾±²¼­ ·­ »´·³·²¿¬»¼ò ß ½¿°·¬¿´ ´»ª§ ½±«´¼ ¾» ­·¦»¼ ¬± ­«¾­¬¿²¬·¿´´§ ¿ª±·¼ ¹»²»®¿´ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬ ¬¿¨ ½±³°®»­­·±²ò ß ½¿°·¬¿´ ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª§ ½¿² ±²´§ ¾» «­»¼ º±® ½¿°·¬¿´ °«®°±­»­ô ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ­°»½·º·½¿´´§ ¼»º·²»¼ ·² ­¬¿¬» ­¬¿¬«¬»­ò Ú±® °¿ª»³»²¬ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±²ô ¬¸» °®±½»»¼­ º®±³ ¿ ½¿°·¬¿´ ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª§ ½±«´¼ ¾» «­»¼ º±® ­¬®»»¬ ½±²­¬®«½¬·±²ô ±ª»®´¿§­ ¿²¼ ®»½±²­¬®«½¬·±²ô ¿­ ¿´´±©»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ­°»½·º·½ ´¿²¹«¿¹» ±º ¬¸» ¾¿´´±¬ ³»¿­«®»ò ̸» °®±¶»½¬­ º«²¼»¼ ©·¬¸ ¿ ½¿°·¬¿´ ´»ª§ ³«­¬ ¸¿ª» ¿² ¿ª»®¿¹» «­»º«´ ´·º» ±º ¿¬ ´»¿­¬ ¬¸» ¬»®³ ±º ¬¸» ´»ª§ ø·ò»òô °®±¶»½¬­ ©·¬¸ ¿² ¿ª»®¿¹» «­»º«´ ´·º» ±º ¿¬ ´»¿­¬ ï𠧻¿®­ º±® ¿ ïð󧻿® ½¿°·¬¿´ ´»ª§÷ò ̸» ­«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ®»½±³³»²¼­ ¿ ïð󧻿® ½¿°·¬¿´ ´»ª§ ¬± ®¿·­» ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ üê ³·´´·±² °»® §»¿® º±® ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ­§­¬»³ ½¿°·¬¿´ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² °®±¶»½¬­ô ©·¬¸ üíëðôðð𠱺 ¬¸» ®»ª»²«» ¼»¼·½¿¬»¼ ¬± ¾·µ» °¿¬¸ ½¿°·¬¿´ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±²ò ̸·­ ´»ª§ ©±«´¼ ½±­¬ ¿² ¿ª»®¿¹» ±º üðòìë °»® üïðð𠱺 ¿­­»­­»¼ ª¿´«» ¿²¼ ½±­¬ ¿² ¿ª»®¿¹» ¬¿¨°¿§»® ¿² »­¬·³¿¬»¼ üèðòðð °»® §»¿® ±ª»® ¬¸» ï𠧻¿®­ò ̸·­ ´»ª§ ­·¦» ­¸±«´¼ ²±¬ ½¿«­» ¿²§ Ó»¿­«®» ë °®±°»®¬§ ¬¿¨ ½±³°®»­­·±²ô ¾¿®®·²¹ ¿²§ «²«­«¿´ ½·®½«³­¬¿²½»­ò ׳°±®¬¿²¬ ½±²­·¼»®¿¬·±²­ ¿¼¼®»­­»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ­«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ·²½´«¼» ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ò Ю±°»®¬§ ¬¿¨»­ ¿®» °¿·¼ ±²´§ ±² °®±°»®¬§ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ´·³·¬­ò ر©»ª»®ô °®±°»®¬§ ±©²»®­ ³¿§ ¾» ½·¬§ ®»­·¼»²¬­ ±® ¬¸»§ ³¿§ ´·ª» ±«¬­·¼» ¬¸» Ý·¬§ò ͱ³» ±º ¬¸» ½±­¬ ±º ¬¸» ´»ª§ ¬± ¾«­·²»­­ ©·´´ ¾» °¿­­»¼ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬± ½«­¬±³»®­ ©¸± ´·ª» ±«¬­·¼» ¬¸» Ý·¬§ò Þ±¬¸ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ¿²¼ ²±²ó®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ °®±°»®¬§ ±©²»®­ ©·´´ ¾»¿® °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» ½±­¬ ±º ¬¸·­ ®»ª»²«» ÎÍÉÔÎÏüÛÎÈÉ Î×ÉÕØúÔÉÄjʬ¿¨¿¾´» °®±°»®¬§ ·­ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ¿²¼ íðû ·­ ²±²ó®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ò ̸» °®±°»®¬§ ¬¿¨ ·­ ¿² «²¼»®­¬¿²¼¿¾´» ¿²¼ º¿³·´·¿® º«²¼·²¹ ³»½¸¿²·­³ ¬± ¬¸» ª±¬»®­ô ³¿µ·²¹ ·¬ °±´·¬·½¿´´§ º»¿­·¾´» º®±³ ¬¸¿¬ÊÉÜÏÙÍÎÔÏÉéÕØúÔÉÄjÊÑÎÚÜÑ ±°¬·±² ´»ª§ °®±°±­¿´­ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ­«½½»­­º«´ ·² ®»½»²¬ §»¿®­ò ̸»®» ¸¿ª» ¾»»² º·ª» Ý·¬§ ±º Û«¹»²» ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª§ °®±°±­¿´­ ±² ¬¸» ¾¿´´±¬ ­·²½» ïççèô ¿²¼ ¿´´ ±º ¬¸±­» ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ­«½½»­­º«´ò Ú·²¿´ λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­ ±º ݱ«²½·´ Í«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ±² Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ó¿§ îíô îððé ïê ß ½¿°·¬¿´ ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª§ ¬± º«²¼ °¿ª»³»²¬ °®»­»®ª¿¬·±² ¾¿½µ´±¹ ©±«´¼ ¾» ¼·ºº»®»²¬ ¬¸¿² ¿ ­¸±®¬»®ó¬»®³ ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª§ ¬± º«²¼ ±²ó¹±·²¹ ­»®ª·½»­ò ׬ ©±«´¼ ¾» ¿² ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» º«²¼·²¹ ³»½¸¿²·­³ º±® ¬¸±­» ½¿°·¬¿´ °®±¶»½¬­ô ¿½½±®¼·²¹ ¬± ¬¸» Ý·¬§jÊ×ÔÏÜÏÚÔÜÑÍÎÑÔÚÔØÊ Ò»© ±® ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ °®±°»®¬§ ¬¿¨»­ ³«­¬ ¾» ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¾§ ¿ ³¿¶±®·¬§ ±º ¬¸» °»±°´» ª±¬·²¹ ·² ¿² »´»½¬·±² ·² Ò±ª»³¾»® ±º ¿² »ª»²ó²«³¾»®»¼ §»¿®ò ײ ¿²§ ±¬¸»® »´»½¬·±²ô ¬¸»®» ³«­¬ ¿´­± ¾» ¿¬ ´»¿­¬ ¿ ëðû ¬«®²±«¬ ±º ª±¬»®­ ø¬¸» ¼±«¾´»ó³¿¶±®·¬§ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬÷ò ʱ¬»®­ ³¿§ ¿°°®±ª» ¿ ïðó §»¿® ½¿°·¬¿´ ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª§ ¿¬ ±²» »´»½¬·±²ô ©·¬¸±«¬ ®»¯«·®·²¹ ¿²§ ®»²»©¿´­ ±ª»® ¬¸» ïð󧻿® °»®·±¼ò Establish a Street and Bike Path Lighting Fee Target net annual revenue of approximately $850,000 Estimated cost to average household of $1.50 per month ̸» ½·¬§ ­°»²¼­ ¿¾±«¬ üèìëôððð °»® §»¿® ¬± ±°»®¿¬» ¿²¼ ³¿·²¬¿·² ¬¸» ÚÔÉÄjÊÊÉËØØÉÜÏÙÛÔÒØÍÜÉÕ ´·¹¸¬·²¹ ­§­¬»³ò Ѻ ¬¸·­ ¬±¬¿´ô ¿¾±«¬ üììðôððð ·­ º±® ´·¹¸¬·²¹ ±² ¿®¬»®·¿´ñ½±´´»½¬±® ­¬®»»¬­ ¿²¼ üíêðôððð ·­ º±® ´·¹¸¬·²¹ ±² ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ­¬®»»¬­ò ݱ­¬ º±® ´·¹¸¬·²¹ ¾·µ» °¿¬¸­ ·­ ¿¾±«¬ üìëôðððò ̸»®» ·­ ¿¹®»»³»²¬ ¿³±²¹ ­«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ³»³¾»®­ ¬¸¿¬ º»»­ ¬± º«²¼ ±°»®¿¬·±²ô ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» ¿²¼ »²¸¿²½»³»²¬ ±º ¬¸» ´·¹¸¬·²¹ ­§­¬»³ ½±«´¼ ¾» ®»¿­±²¿¾´§ ¾§ ´»ª·»¼ ±² ±½½«°¿²¬­ ±º °®±°»®¬·»­ ÛØÏØ×ÔÉØÙÛÄÉÕØÚÔÉÄjÊ­¬®»»¬ ¿²¼ ¾·µ» °¿¬¸ ´·¹¸¬·²¹ ­»®ª·½»­ò Ú»» ®»ª»²«» ©±«´¼ ¾» ¼»¼·½¿¬»¼ ¬± °®±ª·­·±² ±º ­¬®»»¬ ¿²¼ ¾·µ» °¿¬¸ ´·¹¸¬·²¹ò ̸» ­«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ±²» ¾»²»º·¬ ±º ¬¸·­ ®»ª»²«» ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ©±«´¼ ¾» ¬¸¿¬ô ¿­ ¿ º»» º±® ­»®ª·½»­ô ·¬ ½±«´¼ ¾» ´»ª·»¼ ±² ¾±¬¸ °«¾´·½ ¿²¼ °®·ª¿¬» ¿¹»²½·»­ ¿²¼ ¾«­·²»­­»­ò ̸» ­«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ¼»¬»®³·²»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¿ º»» ½±«´¼ ¾» ·³°´»³»²¬»¼ ¬± ®»½±¹²·¦» ¬¸» ½±³³±² ¾»²»º·¬ ±º ¿®¬»®·¿´ ¿²¼ ½±´´»½¬±® ´·¹¸¬·²¹ ©¸·´» ¼·ºº»®»²¬·¿¬·²¹ ¿³±²¹ ´»ª»´­ ±º ­»®ª·½» °®±ª·¼»¼ ¬± ¼·ºº»®»²¬ ¿®»¿­ ±º ¬¸» ½·¬§ò Ê¿½¿²¬ °®±°»®¬·»­ ©±«´¼ ¾» »¨»³°¬ò ̸» ­«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ¿´­± ¼·­½«­­»¼ ¬¸» °±¬»²¬·¿´ º±® ¿ °®±½»­­ ¾§ ©¸·½¸ ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼­ ½±«´¼ ®»¯«»­¬ ¿²¼ °¿§ º±® ¿ ¸·¹¸»® ±® ´±©»® ´»ª»´ ±º ´·¹¸¬·²¹ ­»®ª·½»ò Establish a Street Utility Fee Based on Parking Target net annual revenue of approximately $6 million Estimated cost to average household of $4.50 to $5 per month ̸» ­«¾½±³³·¬¬»» »¨°®»­­»¼ ­«°°±®¬ º±® ¿ «¬·´·¬§ó¬§°» º»» ¿­ ¿ °¿®¬ ±º ¿ °¿½µ¿¹» ±º º«²¼·²¹ ³»½¸¿²·­³­ò Í»ª»®¿´ ­«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ³»³¾»®­ ©»®» ²±¬ ½±³º±®¬¿¾´» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ͧ­¬»³ Ó¿·²¬»²¿²½» Ú»» øÌÍÓÚ÷ ¿­ °®»ª·±«­´§ ½±²­·¼»®»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ½±«²½·´ò Ю·³¿®§ ½±²½»®²­ »¨°®»­­»¼ ©»®» ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¿³±«²¬ ±º ¬¸» º»» ¿­ °®»ª·±«­´§ °®±°±­»¼ ©¿­ °»®½»·ª»¼ ¿­ ¬±± ¸·¹¸ô ¿²¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» º»» ¾¿­·­ ©¿­ ²±¬ ­»»² ¿­ °®±¹®»­­·ª» ±® »¯«·¬¿¾´»ò Ѭ¸»® ³»³¾»®­ ©»®» ­«°°±®¬·ª» ±º ¿ ­¬®»»¬ «¬·´·¬§ º»» ¼«» ¬± ·¬­ ¾®±¿¼ ·²½´«­·±² ±º ­§­¬»³ «­»®­ô º´»¨·¾·´·¬§ ¿²¼ ±ª»®¿´´ º¿·®²»­­ò ײ ½±²­·¼»®·²¹ ª¿®·±«­ ±¬¸»® º«²¼·²¹ ±°¬·±²­ô ·²¬»®»­¬ ·² ¿ °¿®µ·²¹ ¬¿¨ ±® º»» ©¿­ ¼·­½«­­»¼ ¿²¼ô ·² ¬¸» °®±½»­­ô ¬¸» °±¬»²¬·¿´ º±® «­» ±º °¿®µ·²¹ ¿­ ¿ ¾¿­·­ º±® ¿ ­¬®»»¬ «¬·´·¬§ º»» ©¿­ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ò Ë°±² º«®¬¸»® »¨¿³·²¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ¼·­½«­­·±²ô ¿ °¿®µ·²¹ó¾¿­»¼ ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² º»» »³»®¹»¼ ¿­ ¿ º¿ª±®»¼ ±°¬·±²ò Õ»§ º¿½¬±®­ º±® º¿ª±®·²¹ ¿ °¿®µ·²¹ó¾¿­»¼ ­¬®»»¬ «¬·´·¬§ º»» ·²½´«¼»¼æ п®µ·²¹ ­°¿½»­ ¿­ ¿ ³»¿­«®» ±º ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ­§­¬»³ «­¿¹» ¸¿­ ¿ ®¿¬·±²¿´ ¾¿­·­ ·² ¬¸¿¬ ª»¸·½´»­ ³«­¬ «­» ¬¸» ­§­¬»³ ¬± ¹»¬ ¬± ¿²¼ º®±³ °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½»­å ·² ¹»²»®¿´ô ¬¸» ¹®»¿¬»® ¬¸» ²«³¾»® ±º °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½»­ ¿¬ ¿ ­·¬»ô ¬¸» ¹®»¿¬»® °±¬»²¬·¿´ º±® ¬¸» ²«³¾»® ±º ª»¸·½´»­ «­·²¹ ¬¸» ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ­§­¬»³ ¬± ½±³» ¿²¼ ¹± º®±³ ¬¸» ­·¬»ò Ú·²¿´ λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­ ±º ݱ«²½·´ Í«¾½±³³·¬¬»» ±² Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ó¿§ îíô îððé ïé ATTACHMENT D Comparison of Property Tax Funding Approaches The following chart compares three property tax funding mechanisms: long-term GO bonds, short-term GO bonds, and a capital local option levy. Each of these options is designed to fund $6.5 million of pavement capital preservation projects per year for 10 years, and taxpayers will pay the costs over a 10- year period. Comparison of Funding Types – Bonds vs. Local Option Levy To fund $6.5 million of project spending annually for 10 years Capital Local Option Levy (fixed dollar Short-Term Long-Term Bonds Bonds amount) Bond/Levy Size $66.3 million $65.1 million $69.8 million Total Tax Levy Over 10 Years $87.0 million $69.9 million $69.8 million High/Low/Average Annual Levy Amount $10.1/$7.3/$8.7 $7.0 million $7.0 million ( 95% collection rate) million High/Low/AverageHigh/Low/AverageHigh/Low/Average Estimated Tax Rate $0.90/$0.42/$0.64 $0.63/$0.41$0.51 $0.62/$0.41/$0.51 Cost Per Year to Owner of Median- High/Low/AverageHigh/Low/AverageHigh/Low/Average $137/$85/$110 $96/$81/$88 $95/$81/$88 Value Home Payment Period 10 years 10 years 10 years Issuance & Interest Costs Over 10 Years $17.6 million $1,400,000 $1,300,000 Some of the other effects of these funding mechanisms are compared in the following chart. The chart shows both a fixed dollar and a fixed tax rate capital local option levy. F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071210\S071210B.doc Other Effects of Bonds vs. Local Option Levies Capital LOL – Long-Term Short-Term fixed dollar Capital LOL – amount GO Bonds GO Bonds fixed tax rate Impact on Debt Ratios? Yes Minimal None None Measure 5 Impacts/ No No Yes Yes Count Towards $10 Cap? Dollar amount Dollar amount Dollar amount Tax rate representing representing What Number Do Voters representing representing project + project + Approve in Ballot project + interest project + interest issuance costs issuance costs Measure Language? (not interest costs (not interest costs costs + collection costs + collection factor factor or collection or collection factor) factor) Adjustment for Inflation? Depends Depends Depends Yes It would be possible to adjust the bond or levy request in order to capture additional funds to account for inflation over the 10 year period. The chart below sets out the short-term GO bonds and capital local option levies sized to account for 4.8% annual inflation. Comparison of Funding Types – Short-term Bonds vs. Local Option Levy To fund $6.5 million + 4.8% inflation annually for 10 years Capital Local Short-Term Option Levy (fixed tax rate) Bonds Bond/Levy Size $81.1 million $87.0 million Total Paid by Taxpayers $87.0 million $87.0 million High/Low/AverageHigh/Low/Average Annual Levy Amount $10.6/$7.1/$8.7 $10.6/$7.0/$8.7 ( 95% collection rate) million million Estimated Tax Rate $0.62 $0.62 Cost Per Year to Owner High/Low/AverageHigh/Low/Average $124/$96/$109 $124/$95/$109 of Median-Value Home Payment Period 10 years 10 years Issuance & Interest Costs Over 10 Years $1.4 million $1.3 million F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071210\S071210B.doc ATTACHMENT E Election Timing Considerations For the May 2008 Ballot: ? Taxes could be collected beginning in FY09 ? Too soon after November gas tax defeat? ? Property tax ballot campaign may occur during potential referral of council action on gas tax sunset ordinance ? Competition for attention with council primary elections ? Results of state legislative session may not be known ? Must meet the double-majority election requirements ? Would allow for the possibility of a second chance at asking voters in November, if this measure is defeated For the November 2008 Ballot: ? Taxes could be collected beginning in FY10 ? May compete with LCC and/or 4J measures ? Election is right before property tax payments are due ? More time to develop and implement a community education and outreach program regarding transportation funding needs, goals and solutions before council certifies the measure to the ballot ? More time for advocates or opponents to mount a campaign ? Allows for state legislative session results to be known ? Allows for time to develop additional components for a comprehensive transportation funding package ? Occurs after the FY09 budget process is complete ? No double-majority election requirement ? May slow progress on street fees development, if these are to move along hand in hand with a tax levy measure F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071210\S071210B.doc