Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-30-16 Council Agenda Packet EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA November 30, 2016 12:00p.m.CITYCOUNCILWORKSESSION HarrisHall 125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 MeetingofNovember30,2016; HerHonorMayorKittyPiercyPresiding Councilors 12:00p.m.CITYCOUNCILWORKSESSION HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th 1.WORKSESSION12:00p.m. ParksandRecreationSystemPlanUpdate 2.WORKSESSION1:00p.m.* FireworksBan Adjourn. *timeapproximate F:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161130\\A161130S.doc ¶¶¶ȁ¤´¦¤­¤®±ȁ¦®µȁ F:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161130\\A161130S.doc ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT PARKSandRECreate BACKGROUND CommunityEngagement PictureYourParks LittleRed ProjectPriorities F:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161130\\S161130A.docx ImplementationandFundingOptions NextSteps RELATEDCITYPOLICIES (acommunitywhereartsand outdoorsareintegraltooursocialandeconomicwellbeingandareavailabletoall). (agovernmentwhoseongoing financialresourcesarebasedonafairandequitablesystemofrevenuesandareadequateto maintainanddelivermunicipalservices). COUNCILOPTIONS CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTEDMOTION ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION F:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161130\\S161130A.docx 503.220.0575 th 239 NW 13Ave #205 Portland, OR 97209 www.dhmresearch.com DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 1 From September 29 October 3, 2016, DHM Research conducted a survey of City of Eugene voters. The pools, as well as their willingness to support additional funding. : The telephone survey consisted of 300 voters and took approximately 15 minutes to complete. This is a sufficient sample size to assess voter opinions generally and to review findings by multiple subgroups. Respondents were contacted by a live interviewer from a list registered voters, which included cell phones. In gathering responses, a variety of quality control measures were employed, including questionnaire pre-testing and validation. Quotas were set by age, gender, political party, and city ward to model a typical primary election. Any sampling of opinions or attitudes is subject to a margin of error. The margin of error is a standard statistical calculation that represents differences between the sample and total population at a confidence interval, or probability, calculated to be 95%. This means that there is a 95% probability that the sample taken for this study would fall within the stated margin of error if compared with the results achieved from surveying the entire population. The margin of error for this survey is ±5.7%. DHM Research has been providing opinion research and consultation throughout the Pacific Northwest and other regions of the United States for over three decades. The firm is nonpartisan and independent and specializes in research projects to support public policy making. DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 2 80% of voters were satisfied with parks and recreation, with 32% strongly satisfied. Those who were satisfied most frequently cited the maintenance, abundance, and quality of o s can be traced to homelessness. 72% agreed that parks and recreation provide good value to taxpayers, 39% strongly so. Democrats and those who used park or recreation services frequently were more positive. That said, all demographic groups had a positive view of parks and recreation services in Eugene. Almost all (92%) said safety concerns are somewhat or very important (71%) to address. This high level of importance was consistent across all demographics. o While insufficient funding (79%), outdated and undersized recreation facilities (74%), and the unequal distribution of parks and recreation sites (72%) were deemed important by about three in four voters, these challenges were a clear step below safety concerns Party affiliation directly impacted the importance ascribed to each of these three challenges: o . Democrats, frequent park visitors, and those with household incomes over $100K annually were more likely to call for an increase in funding. A new combined community center and pool (29%) was deemed the most important recreation project to fund, followed closely by renovating and expanding existing community centers (25%). With regards to parks, voters mos and the renovation and maintenance of existing parks and natural areas (21%). very satisfied. Even among the least satisfied votersRepublicans (66%) and infrequent parks visitors o (67%)two in three were satisfied with maintenance. Voters were supportive of two scenarios to fully fund the upkeep of parks$2 million for park maintenance (71%) and $2.5 million for maintenance as well as safety and security services (64%). Democrats drove support for the more affordable (85%) and more expensive (75%) o scenarios. DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 3 The decrease Support was again driven by the Democratic voters61% of all frequent voters in Eugene. o From Option B to C, support among these voters dropped precipitously. More voters strongly supported Option B than did Option A. Due to this strong support, and Option position as the largest funding measure with the support of voters, in-depth analysis is provided in the Key Findings section of the report. To pay for expanding and building new parks and recreation facilities, 56% preferred to vote every few years on separate, smaller funding packages instead of one large funding package (35%). Similarly, 59% preferred a temporary funding measure to provide additional funding for maintenance and operations, as compared to 33% who favored a permanent funding system. To pay for parks and recreation services, a majority called for those who could afford more to pay more (53%). One in three (34%) preferred that all pay equally. Democrats were more satisfied with parks and recreation, the maintenance of parks, and more likely to agree that parks and recreation provides good value to taxpayers. A majority of Democrats favored an increase in funding (56%), while two thirds of other voters favored keeping funding at current levels. When faced with specific funding proposals, Democrats were more supportive than Republicans and independent voters. In general, Democrats placed more importance on challenges facing parks and recreation. Across all political affiliations, voters placed extremely high importance on addressing safety concerns. While voters were supportive of a pair of proposals to fund the maintenance of existing park facilities (71%) and maintenance as well as safety and security services (64%), support fell by 7% points for thesecond, more expensive proposal. With regards to the four options to increase funding, support fell precipitously from Option B (57%), costing $50 million, to Option C (34%), costing $75 million. This drop in support can largely be traced to price sensitivities among Democratic voters. As noted above, voters were split about whether funding for parks and recreation should stay at current levels or increase. In this landscape, specifics will be particularly important, including the amount of an increase, the impacts of increased funding, and the form of funding mechanism. DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 4 DHM Research conducted a telephone survey of voters living in the City of Eugene on behalf of the Parks and Open Space and Recreation Services divisions.The purpose of the survey was to assess voter centers, and pools, as well as their willingness to support certain types of funding. Voters in the City of Eugene were by and large positive about the direction their community was headed (Q1). A slight majority of 52% thought things were headed in the right direction, while 35% said they were off on the wrong track, and 14% were unsure. Source: DHM Research, October 2016 While almost seven in ten Democrats (68%) thought things were headed in the right direction, just 36% of independent votersincluding non-affiliated voters, registered Independents, and members of other partiesand 20% of Republicans shared in this optimism. Political affiliation proved to be a major determinant of beliefs throughout the survey, especially on the topic of funding. Those living in Southeast Eugene were more positive (63%) than voters in Northwest (46%) or Willakenzie (37%). It should be noted that 73% of voters in Southeast were Democrats, as compared to 53% of those from the rest of the city. See the Demographics section of this report on page 19 for an explanation of analysis by geographic area. DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 5 Respondents were asked a series of questions to determine their satisfaction with parks and recreation parks and recreation divisions provided good value to taxpayers (Q5). What is your overall level with parksand recreation in Eugene? Source: DHM Research, October 2016 three saying they were very satisfied (Q2). Again, Democrats took a rosier view: 86% were satisfied as compared to 70% of voters with other affiliations. Frequent parks visitor Infrequent parks visitor Frequent recreation visitor Infrequent recreation visitor Source: DHM Research, October 2016 Voters from households that utilized parks and recreation offeringsparks, community centers, poolsat least once per month were more satisfied than less frequent visitors. Southeast voters (86%) were more satisfied than those from Northwest (72%) or Southwest (70%). DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 6 parks and recreation. Those who were satisfied noted the quality of parks, their upkeep, and the abundance of offeringsboth in physical spaces and in programming (Q3). Source: DHM Research, October 2016 Dissatisfied voters focused on safety, upkeep, and homelessness (Q4). While the below results should be interpreted with care due to small sample size (N=47), it is clear that many ascribe their dissatisfaction to the impacts of homelessness in Eugene. Source: DHM Research, October 2016 Three-fourths of voters agreed (72%) that the City of Eugene parks and recreation divisions provided good value for the taxpayer money they spend (Q5). TheCity of Eugene parks and recreation provides good value for the taxpayer money they spend. Source: DHM Research, October 2016 DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 7 Democrats were much more likely to agree that parks and recreation made valuable use of taxpayer money than independent or Republican voters. A higher proportion of Democrats strongly agreed with this claim (51%) than that of Republicans in total agreement (49%). Democrat Republican Independent Source: DHM Research, October 2016 No demographic provide value to taxpayers. That said, some differences were observed. Voters with household incomes over $100K annually (83%) and who visited parks at least once per month value. Again, voters from the Southeast were the most positive of all residents (83%). DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 8 Respondents were presented with four challenges facing parks and recreation in the City of Eugeneas determined by a needs assessment and community feedbackand asked how important addressing each challenge was (Q6-Q9). Safety concernsin some parks due to illegal activity and vandalism Insufficient funding to care for existing parks or to expand the system of parks, trails and amenities Outdatedand undersized community centers and pools that cannot meet current or future recreation needs Unequal distribution of parks, pools,and community centers throughout the city Source: DHM Research, October 2016 While all four challenges were deemed important by voters, safety concerns in some parks due to illegal activity and vandalism stood apart. Almost all (92%) voters said safety concerns were important to address, with 71% describing them as very importantnot so far from the proportion of those who found each of the other challenges to be important overall (72-79%). While the other concerns were viewed similarly, insufficient funding to care for existing parks or to expand the system of parks, trails and amenities There were few demographic differences with regards to the level of importance voters placed on safety concerns. Notably, those of all political affiliations agreed. Women (77%) were more likely than men (64%) to say safety was very important to address. Voters from Wards 5 (87%) and 6 (88%) were the most likely to give a response of very important. DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 9 Safety concerns due to illegal activity Insufficient funding for maintenance/expansion Outdated facilities cannot meet needs Unequal distribution throughout the city Source: DHM Research, October 2016 Across the other three identified challengesinsufficient funding, outdated and undersized facilities, unequal distributions of parks and facilitiesmore variation was observed, with political affiliation leading the way. Democrats placed more importance on each of these three challenges than Republicans did by an average of 19% points. Independent voters provided responses more similar to Democrats except when it came to insufficient funding, where their responses were in line with those of Republicans. Additionally, those who visited a park at least once a month tended to ascribe higher importance levels (an average of +12% points) to the three challenges than voters who did not. Voters ages 18-29 consistently indicated higher importance levels (88-96%) than older respondents. Southwest voters stood out for the importance they placed on addressing unequal distribution (84%), though caution should be employed in interpreting this data due to small sample size. The survey also posed a series of questions to deter recreation services in Eugene (Q10), and what projects they thought were most important for the Parks and Open Space Division (Q11) and Recreation Services Division (Q12) to fund. Esplit between thinking that the city should keep funding for parks and recreation services at their current levels, and that the city should increase funding and add services (Q10). Few called for reductions to funding and cuts to services. DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 10 Whichof the following statements is closest to your opinion about funding for parks and recreation services in Eugene? Source: DHM Research, October 2016 A majority of Democrats (56%) favored an increase in funding, while nearly two-thirds of Republicans (67%) and independent voters (61%) desired that the status quo be maintained. Frequent park visitors were more likely to call for an increase (51%) than less frequent visitors (21%). Voters with household incomes under $25K thought the city should maintain current funding levels (63%), while those with incomes over $100K preferred an increase (58%). Those with incomes between these extremes were split, with 45% preferring to increase funding and 45% preferring to keep funding static. Respondents were asked which recreation project from a list of five they considered the most important to fund (Q11). Voters were most likely to say it was important to fund a combined community center and existing community centers. Build a combined community center and public pool in an area of the city that does not have one Renovate and expand exisiting community centers Build new community centers in the areas of the city that currently do not have them Renovate and expand existing swimming pools Source: DHM Research, October 2016 Republicans were more likely to prefer renovating and expanding existing community centers (34%), or to say they thought none of the recreation projects were important to fund (19%). Pluralities of Democrats (32%) and independent voters (37%) thought a combined community center and pool in an underserved area of the city was most important. DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 11 Those living in Southeast Eugene prioritized building a new combined facility (38%) more than voters from elsewhere in the city (24%). Respondents were also asked which parks project from a list of six they considered the most important to fund (Q12). most followed by renovating and maintaining existing parks and natural areas. Expand the city's trail system for walking and biking Renovate and maintain exisiting parks and natural areas Build new parks in areas of the city that do not have them Acquire land for parks and natural areas in parts of the city that do not have them currently Improve access to the Willamette River for swimming, fishing and nature viewing Build a multi-field sports complex for local use and regional events Source: DHM Research, October 2016 Again, a notable proportion of Republicans said none of the proposed projects were important to fund (15%). While Republicans preferred renovation and maintenance, Democrats and independent voters than those without (24%). One in three frequent park visitors (33%) also prioritized the trails, as compared to just 13% of those who did not visit a park at least once a month. A notable 11 out of 25 of Ward 3 voters said the trail system project was the most important to fund. Voters were asked a series of questions about the maintenance and upkeep of Eugene their satisfaction (Q13) and support for two possible funding scenarios for park upkeep (Q14-15). Three in four (77%) were they were very satisfied (Q13) in Eugene, as assessed earlier in the survey. DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 12 Howare you with how well the City of Eugene's parks are maintained? Source: DHM Research, October 2016 Similar demographic patterns were also observed, with Democrats (81%) and frequent park visitors (79%) saying they were more satisfied than Republicans (66%) and infrequent visitors (67%) did. Again, voters from Southeast Eugene were more satisfied at 81%, compared to just 61% of those in Southwest. parks. The first scenario called for an additional $2 million annuallyabout $27 for a typical household to fully fund maintenance of existing park facilities (Q14). This maintenance included maintaining lawns and natural areas, park clean-up, and servicing restrooms. The second scenario included all the funding for maintenance described in the first scenario, and also allocated funds to provide safety and security services at city parks (Q15). This scenario called for an additional $2.5 million annually, or about $35 for a typical household. Fullyfunding park maintenance services: $2 million annually, $27/household Fully funding parksmaintenance, plus safety and security services: $2.5 million annually, $35 household Source: DHM Research, October 2016 Support for both funding scenarios was high. Some 71% supported fully funding park maintenance services at a cost of an additional $2 million annually. Nearly as many (64%) supported fully funding tional cost of $2.5 million annually. In both cases, the proportion of voters in strong support was at least double that of those in strong opposition. This is a simple, yet effective bellwether for the prospects of any funding proposition. DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 13 Fullyfunding park maintenance services: $2 million annually, $27/household Fully funding parks maintenance, plus safety and security services: $2.5 million annually, $35 household Source: DHM Research, October 2016 The largest differences in support for both funding scenarios were by political affiliation. Democrats overwhelmingly supported the $2 million (85%) and $2.5 million (75%) scenarios, though support dropped by 10% pointslikely due to the increase in cost. Less than half of Republicans supported either measure, though there was no drop in support when considering the more expensive proposal. While Republicans indicated cost sensitivities throughout the survey, the inclusion of funding for safety and security services likely served as a counterbalance. Slight majorities of independent voters supported the $2 million (57%) and $2.5 million (50%) scenarios. Some price sensitivity was observed (-7% points). Across both scenarios, women were more supportive than men were. More frequent visitors to parks also tended to be more supportive than those who did not visit a park at least once per month. Despite these differences, voters in all four demographic groups exhibited similar price sensitivity. Women76%71%-5% points Men64%56%-8% points Frequent parks visitor77%70%-7%points Infrequent visitor57%51%-6% points Source: DHM Research, October 2016 Finally, voters living in Southeast Eugene were significantly more likely to support each scenario than those living in Willakenzie or Northwest. voters were next asked if they supported or opposed a series of four options to increase funding to maintain and expand parks and recreation programs and services in Eugene (Q16-Q19). Each option built on the previous one, and represented an increase in cost. Respondents were provided with an explanation of the impact the option would have on parks and recreation, total cost, and an estimate for annual burden for a typical household. DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 14 Renovates and expands existing parks and one Option A$30 million$30 swimming pool. Additionally, it renovates and expands up to three existing community centers, improves safe access to Option B$50 million$58 for walking and biking, and buildsfive new neighborhood parks in areas of the city that currently have limited access. Additionally, it renovates and expands an additional swimming pool and community center, and builds one Option C$75 million$88 large community park with playgrounds and picnic areas. Additionally, it builds one new swimming pool and community center and five additional neighborhood Option D$100 million$123 parks in areas of the city that currently have limited access to parks and recreation facilities. Source: DHM Research, October 2016 voters. Option B was supported by nearly as many voters (57%), and the proportion of those in strong support and strong opposition both rose. About one in three (34%) supported Option C, and even fewer did so for Option D (30%). For these last two options, strong opposition was greater than total support. OptionA: $30 million, $30 household OptionB: $50 million $58 household Option C: $75million $88 household Option D: $100million $123 household Source: DHM Research, October 2016 DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 15 opinions. For Option A, 74% of Democrats were supportive, as compared to 41% of Republicans and 46% of independent voters. Total support for Option B remained consistent for Democrats (71%) and independent voters (46%), while the proportion of Republicans in support fell by 9% points. More Democrats and independent voters were strongly supportive of Option B than Option A. Option AOption BOption COption D Source: DHM Research, October 2016 Support for Option C plummeted across all party affiliations, with just 44% of Democrats and less than one in four of independent (24%) and Republican voters (14%) supporting the proposal. The story was much the same for Option D. For both Option C and D, voters under 30 were the only group where a majority supported funding. As with elsewhere in the survey, those who had visited parks more frequently were supportive of funding for parks and recreation, while less frequent visitors tended to oppose funding. Voters in Southeast Eugene were the most supportive. opinions of Option B follows. This is due to position as the largest Democrats and independent voters (Q17). To recap, 57% supported the option, with 24% in strong support. Four in ten (40%) were opposed, with 24% in strong opposition. DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 16 Support tracked with age. For example, 78% of voters under 30 supported Option B as compared to just 49% of those over 65. Voters over the age of 45 (30%) were significantly more likely than their younger counterparts (11%) to strongly oppose Option B. While no statistical significance was observed in overall support, voters with household income over $75K annually (40%) were twice as likely to strongly support Option B than those with lower incomes (20%). While overall support was not so different between men (54%) and women (60%), the latter were significantly more likely to strongly support Option B: 30%, as compared to 18%. The only groups with a majority in opposition of Option B were Republicans (68%), those who visited parks less frequently than once a month (65%), and independent voters (51%). Almost half of Republicans (45%) and infrequent park visitors (47%) strongly opposed the funding proposal. To close the survey, voters were asked about methods to fund parks and recreation in Eugene, irrespective of if they supported or opposed increasing funding (Q20-Q22). For each question, respondents were asked which of a pair of statements was closer to their preference. To pay for expanding and building new park and recreation facilities, 56% preferred to vote every few years on separate, and smaller funding packages while just 35% preferred voting on one large funding package that would completely fund parks and recreation needs for the next 10-15 years (Q20). Source: DHM Research, October 2016 To varying degrees,voters from almost all backgrounds preferred the iterative funding process. The one exception was those with a household income of over $100K annually, a slight majority of who preferred one large funding package (50%). Preference for the iterative process was particularly strong among Republicans (68%), infrequent park visitors (69%), and those with incomes of $25K or less (74%). DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 17 When it came to providing existing parks with additional funding for maintenance and operations, 59% preferred a temporary funding measure voted on every five years while just one in three (33%) called for a permanent funding system ove (Q21). Source: DHM Research, October 2016 This preference was consistent across all demographics, though was particularly pronounced among Republicans (82%), those who had voted in two or fewer of the last four elections (75%), and those with household incomes of less than $50K (71%). Finally, 53% preferred that those who can afford more, pay more for parks and recreation services, compared to 34% who wanted all to pay equally (Q22). Source: DHM Research, October 2016 Democrats strongly preferred that those who can afford more, pay more (65%). A nearly equal proportion of Republican voters preferred that all pay an equal amount (62%). While more evenly split, a plurality of independent voters called for a progressive pay scale (46%). DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 18 The following section contains clarifying information about the demographic makeup of survey respondents, as well as comparisons to frequent and registered voters in Eugene. By age, survey respondents were demographically consistent with frequent votersthose who had voted in two or more of the last four elections. Frequent voters in most communities tend to skew older than all registered voters, and do so to an even further degree when compared to the general population. 18-2911%11%27%33% 30-4420%20%23%22% 45-6436%36%28%30% 65+33%33%22%15% Source: DHM Research, October 2016 Survey respondents were similar to the general population of Eugene in terms of children under the age of 18 living in the household. Children <18 in HH26%26% No Children in HH70%74% Refused4%-- Source: DHM Research, October 2016 Those surveyed were also demographically consistent with frequent voters on the basis of party registration. The 1 percentage point difference in independent voters was a result of rounding. Democrat61%61%51% Republican23%23%19% Independent voters17%16%31% Source: DHM Research, October 2016 DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 19 Finally, the distribution of survey respondents by ward was consistent with that of frequent voters. Through the survey, analysis is provided based on four geographic areas made by bundling wards together: Southeast, Willakenzie, Northwest, and Southwest. Southeast39%39%40% Ward 114%14%13% Ward 217%17%13% Ward 38%8%13% Willakenzie27%27%25% Ward 413%13%12% Ward514%14%13% Northwest22%22%24% Ward 611%11%12% Ward 711%11%12% Southwest12%12%12% Ward 812%12%12% Source: DHM Research, October 2016 DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 20 Hello, my name is _______ from (name of fielding house). I have some questions about your community. 1. All things considered, do think that the City of Eugene is headed in the right direction or are things off on the wrong track? Right direction52% Wrong track35% 14% The primary focus of this survey is on the parks and recreation services in the City of Eugene. 2. To start, what is your overall satisfaction level with parks and recreation in Eugene? Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied? Very satisfied32% Somewhat satisfied48% Somewhat dissatisfied10% Very dissatisfied5% 5% 3. Why are you satisfied? Well-maintained24% Lots of parks/availability23% Nice/good parks20% Clean/free of litter11% Abundance of programs/activities9% Close to where I live7% Satisfied/no problems7% Beautiful parks7% Walking/hiking trails5% Bike trails5% All other responses4% or less None/Nothing2% 1% DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 21 4.Why are you dissatisfied? Homeless encampments37% Parks are not maintained35% Too much funding goes to parks18% Unsafe --general18% Drugs/drug paraphernalia16% Acquiring too much land11% Not enough funding8% 7% People in charge are badly managing6% Other47% 5. Next, do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The City of Eugene Parks and Recreation provides good value for the taxpayer money they spend. Strongly agree39% Somewhat agree33% Somewhat disagree9% Strongly disagree10% 9% A City of Eugene needs assessment, and community feedback, identified four challenges facing local parks and recreation Please tell me if addressing that challenge is very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important. 6.Insufficientfundingtocarefor existingparksortoexpandthe 43%36%11%6%4% systemofparks,trailsand amenities. 7.Outdatedandundersized communitycentersandpools 33%41%14%6%6% thatcannotmeetcurrentor futurerecreationneeds. 8.Unequaldistributionofparks, poolsandcommunitycenters throughoutthecity,leaving 35%37%15%9%4% someneighborhoodswithless accesstoparksandrecreation facilities. 9.Safetyconcernsinsomeparks duetoillegalactivityand 71%21%5%1%2% vandalism. DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 22 Which of the following statements is closest to your opinion about funding for parks and recreation services in Eugene a.The city should reduce parks and recreation 5% funding and make cuts to services b.The city should increase parks and recreation 43% funding and add additional services c.The city should keep funding for parks and 47% recreation services at their current levels d. 6% Thank you. The City of Eugene Parks and Recreation is interested in your opinions about funding. 11. From the following list, please tell me which one of the following recreation projects is the most important to fund. a.Renovate and expand existing community centers25% b.Renovate and expand existing swimming pools13% c.Build new community centers in areas of the city 14% that currently do not have them d.Build new swimming pools in areas of the city that 7% currently do not have them e.Build a combinedcommunity center and swimming pool in areas of the city that currently 29% do not have them f.None8% g.4% 12. Which one of the following parks projects is the most important to fund? a.Improving access to the Willamette River for 9% swimming, fishing and nature viewing b.Renovate and maintain existing parks and natural 21% areas c.Build new parks in areas of the city that currently 14% do not have them d.system for walking and biking to connect existing parks, natural areas and 27% neighborhoods e.Build a multi-field sports complex for local use and 9% regional events f.Acquire land for parks and natural areas in parts 11% of the city that currently do not have them g.None 5% h. 3% DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 23 13. Overall, how satisfied are you with how well the somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied? Very satisfied28% Somewhat satisfied48% Somewhat dissatisfied15% Very dissatisfied5% 3% 14. The City of Eugene currently does not have the resources to maintain its existing park facilities, including maintaining lawns and natural areas, park clean-up and servicing restrooms. It would take an additional $2 million annually, or about $27 for a typical household, to fully fund park maintenance. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose fully funding park maintenance services? Strongly support40% Somewhat support31% Somewhat oppose10% Strongly oppose16% 3% 15. The City of Eugene also does not have the resources to provide safety and security services at city parks. It would take an additional $2.5 million, or about $35 for a typical household, to fully fund park maintenance and safety and security services. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose fully funding parks maintenance, plus safety and security services? Strongly support32% Somewhat support32% Somewhat oppose15% Strongly oppose16% 5% DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 24 programs and services. These options are only examples. No decisions have been made. Your answers will help guide further community discussions. For each, please tell me if you would strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the option. I will read these in order from the least to most comprehensive. The options build on each other. Please keep that in mind and listen closely. $30 million option 16.and one swimming pool. The total cost is $30 million, or about $30 annually for a typical household. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose Option A? Strongly support19% Somewhat support43% Somewhat oppose18% Strongly oppose16% 3% $50 million option 17. Next is Option B. This option includes everything in Option A. Additionally, it Renovates and expands up to three existing community centers, improves safe access to the Willamette River, expands the that currently have limited access. The total cost is $50 million, or about $58 annually for a typical household. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose Option B? Strongly support24% Somewhat support33% Somewhat oppose16% Strongly oppose24% 2% DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 25 $75 million option 18. Next is Option C. This option includes everything from Options A and B. Additionally, it Renovates and expands an additional swimming pool and community center, and builds one large community park with playgrounds and picnic areas. The total cost is $75 million, or about $88 annually for each household. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose Option C? Strongly support11% Somewhat support23% Somewhat oppose26% Strongly oppose36% 5% $100 million option 19. The final option is Option D. This option includes everything from Options A, B and C. Additionally, it builds one new swimming pool and community center and five additional neighborhood parks in areas of the city that currently have limited access to parks and recreation facilities. The total cost for this option is $100 million, or about $123 annually a typical household. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose Option D? Strongly support10% Somewhat support20% Somewhat oppose24% Strongly oppose43% 3% methods that the City could fund them. I am now going to read to you pairs of statements. For each, please tell me which is closer to your preference, even if neither matches your view exactly. 20. a.Vote on one large funding package that would completely fund the parks and recreation needs 35% for the next 10-15 years. b.Every few years, vote on separate, smaller funding packages that would each make progress 56% towards meeting parks and recreation needs. c.Neither4% d.6% DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 26 21. a.A temporary funding measure that would have to 59% be voted on every five years b.A permanent funding system that is voted on once 33% c.Neither 3% d. 5% 22. a.All pay equally34% b.Those who can afford more, pay 53% more c.Neither5% d.9% 23. Gender Male49% Female51% 24. Age 18-2911% 30-4420% 45-6436% 65+33% 25. Area of city: Ward 114% Ward 217% Ward 38% Ward 413% Ward 514% Ward 611% Ward 711% Ward 812% 26. Party Democrat61% Republican23% Independent Party of Oregon4% Other 2% Non-affiliated11% DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 27 27. Voting history 0/1 of 414% 2 of 423% 3 of 423% 4 of 440% 28. Do any children under age 18 live in your home? Yes26% No70% Refused4% 29. Do you own your own home, rent your home, or something else? Own69% Rent22% Something Else5% Refused4% 30. What is your total household income, before taxes? Remember to include everyone living in your household. Your best estimate will do. Less than$25,00016% $25,000 to less than $50,00023% $50,000 to less than $75,00015% $75,000 to less than $100,0009% $100,000 or more19% Refused 17% 31. How frequently do you or someone in your household visit Eugene parks? Daily14% Weekly38% Monthly18% Less than once per month18% Never8% Refused4% 32. How frequently do you or someone in your household visit a Eugene community center or pool? Daily1% Weekly9% Monthly14% Less than once per month34% Never36% Refused4% DHM RESEARCH |CITY OF EUGENE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY | OCTOBER 2016 28 Parks and Recreation Advisory Group Membership 10/25/2016 Community Member Planning Area Coyote Jones (youth representative) Willakenzie Dr. Richard Kincade Springfield Hugh Prichard Southeast Joe Maruschak Willakenzie Kelly Prusz Willakenzie Kelly Reis Southwest Kevin Shanley Southeast Lyllye Parker Willakenzie Marjorie Smith City Central Lucy McGuire (youth representative) Southwest Misenga Scott Southeast Pat McGillivray Bethel Penny Wardle Bethel Rosalia Marquez River Road/ Santa Clara Scott Sanders River Road/ Santa Clara City Staff Carolyn Burke, Project Manager Craig Carnagey, Parks and Open Space Director Craig Smith, Recreation Services Director Philip Richardson, POS Staff Sandy Shaffer, Recreation Staff up to 4up to 4up to 5up to 5 tƚźƓƷƭ 2; 32; 3 1010 55222222222 Addresses Rec Facility capacity/function limitations Addresses condition issues/ historic preservation Specifically targets programmng to serve 55+ Growing community (capacity enhancing) Improves energy efficiency/ sustainability Improves operating/staffing efficiency Location serves low-income families Strong opportunity for partnership Improves geographic distribution D: Leverages opportunities (all that apply) Addresses climate change Programming/ education Improves sense of safety Location serves diversity E: Addresses trends (all that apply) Community-wide Points C: Timing/ Urgency (all that apply) Planning Area Points Revenue generating Multiple benefits Mitigating failure Recreation Projects A: Addresses challenges F: Other circumstances ƚƷğƌ tƚźƓƷƭ {ǒĬƷƚƷğƌ B: Survey Results 11/8/2016 123456789101112131415161718 up to 5up to 5 tƚźƓƷƭ 5; 105; 10 2; 5 10 55522222222222225 Location serves low-income (+youth and density) Addresses identified special facility/amenity gap Specifically targets programmng to serve 55+ Improves geographic distribution of parksGrowing community (capacity enhancing) Multiple benefits (outside realm of P&R) PARKS & RECreate Project Prioritization Addresses maintenance challenge D: Leverages opportunities (all that apply) Supports green infrastructure Addresses climate change Partner/donation funding F: Other circumstances (up to 5 pts) Programming/ education Improves sense of safety Location serves diversity E: Addresses trends (all that apply) Community-wide points C: Timing/ Urgency (all that apply) Park and Habitat Projects Planning area points Regulatory mandate Revenue generating Connectivity/access Low hanging fruit Mitigating failure Opportunity lost Natural resource A: Addresses challenges ƚƷğƌ tƚźƓƷƭ B: Survey Results 11/8/2016 {ǒĬΏƚƷğƌ 12345678910111213141516181920212223 Playground Equity Map Legend Eugene Parks and Recreation System 1/2 0 Scale SWa RSa RSb Wa RSc Wb Ba RSd RSe Wc RSf Bb Wi Wd We Bc Wf Bd RSg Wg Be RSh Wh 6 Bf CCa SPRINGFIELD SWc CCb SEc SWa SEa SWd SWb SWf SEb A 44 SWg SWe SEe SEf Level of Need* 58 Half-Mile School Service Areas Waterbodies November 2016 State of Eugene’s Parks 2016 Update A recent survey of over 7,000 Eugene residents found that half are enjoying parks on a daily or weekly basis, and two thirds are visiting at more than 9 million adult visits each least monthly. This adds up to It is our role as the City of Eugene Parks and Open Space Division year. to care for these highly-used parks and work collaboratively with the community to steward their development into the future. This report is an update of the 2014 State of Eugene’s Parks Report. It provides a closer look at the present condition of parks, the challenges affecting their condition and how we are working to address those our action plan for improvements. challenges, and Parks & Open Space Park Condition Ratings One of the ways in which we track the health of developed parks is having a staff team from diverse work areas come together every two years to assess and grade various categories in 10 to 15 parks, with a goal of Grade Changes— Aging playground equipment that, although safe, was not in compliance with 2009 to 2016 national standards and/or was missing components to make it functional Closed restrooms Playground not yet converted from sand to woodchips to comply with safety and accessibility standards Paved surfaces are aging and cracked, creating trip hazards Turf areas in distressed conditions, brown or completely bare Landscape beds are weedy and overgrown with invasive species Nonfunctioning wading pools onsite Challenges Impacting Eugene’s Parks nual costs to operate and maintain parks have risen over the past 10 years, and general fund revenues An have not kept pace. Bond funding guided the purchase of 980 additional acres for natural areas and future developed parks . Funding was redirected from other necessary services to provide a minimum level of stabilization through activities such as securing property with fencing, creating ac- cess points, removing some fuel loads and invasive species, and mitigat- ing illegal dumping. Reductions in park staff mean that getting the attention they need and are wearing out sooner . There is a growing backlog of maintenance needs and amenities that need replacement. Illegal camping continues to rise and set new records. Staff are spending an increasing amount of time trying to keep parks safe and clean, and less time on other operational needs. 2 State of Eugene’s Parks 2016 I In addition to camping, Removed From 7,450 2016, over 7,450 bags of garbage and 3,500 needles were removed from camp sites, and there were over 4,000 Eugene Police bags of garbage and Department incidences in parks. 3,500 needles 17 parks sites across Eugene are poised to serve Eugene‘s growing *Jan.–Sept., 2016 population and underserved areas but there is currently no funding to maintain these sites if developed . Meeting The Challenges adapt maintenance services to the evolving needs of park users and park infrastructure. We continue to For example, although reducing irrigation in parks was a cost savings measure following budget reductions, ees were suffering and dry soils were causing irrigation system failures. Brown turf also made it less inviting t r for users. Staff continues to focus maintenance activities on the highest use areas in each park and evaluate the effects on areas where maintenance has been reduced. In the summer of 2016, the watering schedule was increased to preserve these assets. Our information systems parks assets and provide better customer service. For ex- ample, Urban Forestry staff can now use their iPhones in the about tree planting dates and locations, pruning schedules and health conditions. Eugene Outdoors volunteers play an important Our role in helping care for Eugene’s parks and building a closer relationship between us and the community we serve. In FY16, individuals, adoption groups and service organizations contributed 15,500 volunteer hours valued In FY16, individuals, adoption groups at over $365,000. and service organizations contributed 15,500 volunteer hours . $365,000. valued at over Between January 1, 2015 and October 31, 2016 three grants totaling $259,910. This funding went toward fuels reduction, invasive species removal and the introduction of native plants in natural areas. Over the summers of 2015 and 2016, Park Ambassadors and Eugene Police bike patrol activities in the Riverfront Park System and providing community outreach. This work provided a model for how safety concerns could be addressed across the park system year round. 3 State of Eugene’s Parks 2016 I Eugene’s Parks and Natural Areas 4,698 Total Acres 3,801 Acres of Natural Areas 67 Developed Parks 52 Playgrounds 47 Miles of Trails 17 Future Developed Park Sites Our Plan of Action solve our $2.3 million operations and maintenance funding gap in order We will be working to which would mean opening closed restrooms, increasing custodial service levels, restoring ongoing and preventative maintenance services on amenities, and fully stabilizing undeveloped park sites by creating controlled access points, managing focus on the growing need for a year-round security Solving the operations gap will allow us to which will be comprised of park ambassadors, a dedicated police Solving the maintenance and operations gap will put us in a position to be able to Through extensive work to get community input and a thorough analysis of the system’s strengths, challenges, and opportunities, the It is anticipated that the plan will be ready for City Council adoption by spring 2017. We will by getting out and meeting the people we serve in person and boosting social media efforts in order to foster better communication and collaboration. Parks & Open Space 1820 Roosevelt 541-682-4800 eugene-or.gov/parks 4 State of Eugene’s Parks 2016 I Memorandum Date: November 22, 2016 To: Eugene City Council From: Craig Smith, Recreation Division Manager 3´¡©¤¢³Ȁ !³³ ¢§¬¤­³ &Ȁ 3³ ³¤ ®¥ 2¤¢±¤ ³¨®­ & ¢¨«¨³¨¤² 2¤¯®±³ #®¬¬´­¨³¸ #¤­³¤±²  ­£ 0®®«² _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2¤¢±¤ ³¨®­ #®¬¬´­¨³¸ #¤­³¤±²  ­£ 0®®«² 5­£¤±²³ ­£¨­¦ ³§¤ )­µ¤­³®±¸ Beginning with Washington Park, the first community center built in 1947, and concluding with Hilyard Community Center, completed in 1990, the City of Eugene Recreation Division has a unique mix of facilities that exist because of donation, acquisition, or built new. Each one of these facilities, despite their age and design continue to contribute to the health and wellness, artistic endeavors, educational opportunities, and social connectedness of the Eugene community. This inventory includes a total of 16 unique facilities. The core of the inventory includes 6 community centers that are actively staffed and programmed: Campbell CC (1962) Sheldon CC (1968) River House Outdoor Center (1972) Amazon CC (1973) Petersen Barn CC (1976) Hilyard CC (1990) The core inventory also includes 3 aquatic facilities; Amazon Pool (built 1957and remodeled in 2001) Sheldon Pool (1968) Echo Hollow Pool (1969) The additional inventory includes 7 facilities that are leased to variety of local agencies, are used as alternative programming sites or community rental facilities. They also include facilities that hold historic significance in our community. They include; Westmoreland CC (Boys and Girls Club of Emerald Valley), Kaufman House (leased by OSU Extension Services), Shelton- McMurphy Johnson House (Historic Site, S-MJ Association), Wayne Morse Family Farm (Historic Site, rental facility), Washington Park & Lamb Cottage (rental facilities) and Laurelwood Golf Course Club House (leased to private contractor). For a complete detailed summary of the current status of the Recreation Community Centers and Pools, please see the Recreation Facility Assessment, an appendix to the Parks and Recreation System Needs Assessment. 2¤¢±¤ ³¨®­ #®¬¬´­¨³¸ #¤­³¤±²  ­£ 0®®«² ȃ #§ ««¤­¦¤² &±®¬ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ 0 ±ª²  ­£ 2¤¢±¤ ³¨®­ ΔΜΛΜ - ²³¤± 0« ­Ȁ %·¨²³¨­¦ #®­²³± ¨­³²Ȁ #®¬¬´­¨³¸ ¢¤­³¤±²  ±¤ ­®³  «¶ ¸²  ¡«¤ ³® ¥´««¸  ¢§¨¤µ¤ ³§¤¨± ¯®³¤­³¨ « ³® ²¤±µ¤  ² ²®¢¨ «  ­£ ±¤¢±¤ ³¨®­ « ¢¤­³¤±² ¥®± ³§¤¨±  £© ¢¤­³ ­¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£² ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ « ¢ª ®¥ ²¯ ¢¤  ­£ ¥ ¢¨«¨³¨¤²Ǿ «¤²² ³§ ­ ®¯³¨¬ « «®¢ ³¨®­²Ǿ « ¢ª ®¥  ¬¤­¨³¨¤² ®± ®´³£ ³¤£ £¤²¨¦­²ȁ !¦¨­¦ & ¢¨«¨³¨¤² Since the 1989 Master Plan, the City has added one new community center, Hilyard, and had one major renovation of a pool, Amazon. The facilities have been maintained so they are available to use safely and effectively every day of the year, but overall community centers and pools are currently operating with systems that have exceeded their useful life. Most have gone through various levels of minor renovation to increase their efficiency and some have had major systems repair to keep them functional. Some are in need of major renovation based on the age of their infrastructure. 3¬ «« & ¢¨«¨³¨¤² At the time in which our community centers and pools were either donated, acquired, or built, they met the community needs for recreation programming. Since that time, and the programmability and size of the community centers is not meeting the current and future needs of the community. The national best practice strategy for Parks and Recreation Departments is to build multi- purpose community centers and pools, roughly in the 50,000 square foot size range. 2¤­®µ ³¨®­ ®¥ %·¨²³¨­¦ & ¢¨«¨³¨¤² Recreation staff have recently worked with architects form Robertson-Sherwood to review all community centers and pools to identify the deferred maintenance of each facility, and determine what renovation components are recommended to bring that facility up to its full capacity in providing services within the service area. %°´¨³ ¡«¤ '¤®¦± ¯§¨¢ !¢¢¤²² It is has been clearly identified in Parks & Recreation master plans since the 1989 that there are two geographic areas of Eugene that are not being served with community centers or pools, Southwest Eugene and Santa Clara. These planning areas have seen significant population growth, yet have not seen the creation of community centers and pools to serve that growth. 2¤¢±¤ ³¨®­ #®¬¬´­¨³¸ #¤­³¤±²  ­£ 0®®«² .¤·³ 3³¤¯² The message that was received from the Eugene community during the last 16 months of extensive public outreach identifies both the . This message is clear, yet it creates a challenging process when prioritizing projects in the next evolution of recreation community centers and pools. There is a need to both take care of all of our aging facilities as well as build new in areas of Eugene that continue to remain unserved. 0±¨®±¨³¸ #±¨³¤±¨  The baseline criteria for prioritizing the renovation of community centers and pools as well as building new !³³ ¢§¬¤­³ # # ¯¨³ « 0±®©¤¢³ 0±¨®±¨³¨¹ ³¨®­ #±¨³¤±¨  community centers and pools is identified in of this Council Work Session packet. This criteria serves as a foundation for comparing baseline information and triple bottom line thinking, but there are other variables in determining where to prioritize recreation service enhancements, such as services provided by partner agencies and any increase in the ongoing cost of operations. #®¬¬´­¨³¸ 0 ±³­¤± 6 ±¨ ¡«¤² maintained a high level of community collaboration and partner relationships in providing recreation services across the Eugene community. The longest standing collaborations exist with both local school districts and how facilities (gyms, fields, pools) have been shared to reduce the cost of operating and maintaining to the local taxpayer. In prioritizing the next recreational facility investments in our community, one must understand the services that are also being provided by other key organizations within our community. Those organizations include both 4j and Bethel School Districts, the Boys and Girls Club of Emerald Valley, the YMCA, and Kidsports. It also includes the peers within Eugene that include the River Road Park and Recreation District, as well as peers from across the river, Willamalane Park and Recreation District. In addition, the Recreation Division, has relationships with over 150 organizations and agencies that rely on our facilities to provide or enhance their own missions. It is necessary to understand this network of agencies and services and assess the variables they bring to the table in making priority decisions in the Parks and Recreation System Plan. This is especially important when looking through the access and geographic distribution component of the triple bottom line lens. )­¢±¤ ²¤£ /¯¤± ³¨­¦  ­£ - ¨­³¤­ ­¢¤ #®²³² A key variable when considering any capital improvement that provides new facilities, or significantly expanded services, is the need to also identify the increased operating and maintenance cost. In the current financial environment, additional operating costs are a considerable challenge to overcome. !³³ ¢§¬¤­³ $ ȃ $± ¥³ 0±¨®±¨³¨¹ ³¨®­ # ¯¨³ « 0±®©¤¢³ ,¨²³² ¡¸ 0« ­­¨­¦ !±¤  See to identify the initial Recreation Community Center and Pool capital projects after they were reviewed with both the prioritization criteria and the community wide variables. $± ¥³ 0±¨®±¨³¸ 0±®©¤¢³² ȃ #®¬¬´­¨³¸ #¤­³¤±² $± ¥³ 0±¨®±¨³¨¹ ³¨®­ # ¯¨³ « ,¨²³³ ª¤ ¢ ±¤ ¥®± ¶§ ³ ¸®´ § µ¤ The #1 priorities in the approach. These priorities are based again on variables that include increasing service and efficiency without significant increase in additional O&M costs, and the impact of partnerships or strategic plans by other community organizations. Sheldon Community Center/Pool renovation - creates efficiencies by combining both facilities and increase programming amenities Campbell Community Center -increases health, fitness and other programming amenities for adult population River House Outdoor Center -increases educational space, operating space, and community meeting space The #2 priorities include: Phase 1 of a Multi-purpose community center/pool in one of the unserved areas of town the potential to create a Community School Service Strategy exists in both SW Eugene and Santa Clara Petersen Barn CC renovation increases programming amenities and capacity to serve the area $± ¥³ 0±¨®±¨³¸ 0±®©¤¢³² ȃ 0®®«² $± ¥³ 0±¨®±¨³¨¹ ³¨®­ # ¯¨³ « ,¨²³ Again, the #1 priorities in the . Those choices are also based on minimizing additional operation and maintenance costs while also understanding the impact of partnerships and strategic plans by community partners. Sheldon Community Center/Pool renovation - creates efficiencies by combining both facilities and increase programming amenities Echo Hollow Pool renovation has the potential to coordinate with Bethel SD with the future renovation of Cascade MS, strengthening the Community School Service Strategy in this area of Eugene A 2014 Business Operations Audit by Ballard King and a 2016 Feasibility Study provided by Conventions Sports & Leisure International, clearly indicated the need for increased pool space in Eugene. When &´³´±¤ ¢ ¯¨³ « £®«« ±² ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¥®¢´²¤£ ®­ %¢§® identifying priorities, the Ballard King audit identified; Building a seasonal roof over Amazon Pool is a strategy that offers the least cost in capital expense in increasing pool access during the winter months. This capital savings is offset by the additional costs in maintaining and operating Amazon Pool for an additional six months of the year. This strategy also comes into question based on the likelihood of the YMCA building a new indoor pool in close proximity to Amazon Pool. There is more analysis yet to be completed in fully determining this particular strategy. The #2 priorities include: Phase 1 of a Multi-purpose community center / pool in one of the unserved areas of town the potential to create a Community School Service Strategy exists in both SW Eugene and Santa Clara 3¯®±³² #®¬¯«¤· The partnerships with both local school districts have led to the creation of an inventory of outdoor sports fields that are, for the most part, proportionately distributed throughout Eugene, and we collaborate to make those facilities equitably available to community and school use. These sports fields include approximately 47 grass rectangle fields and diamond fields as well as 11 synthetic turf rectangle fields. In partnership with Travel Lane County and Willamalane PRD, the City of Eugene just completed Phase 1 of a Feasibility Study for Potential New Multi-Use Sports Facilities in Eugene, conducted by Conventions (¨¦§ £¤¬ ­£ ¥®±  ­ ®´³£®®± ¥¨¤«£ ¢®¬¯«¤· Sports & Leisure International. 4§¤ ±¤²´«³² ®¥ ³§¤ ¬ ±ª¤³ £¤¬ ­£  ­ «¸²¨² ¢®­£´¢³¤£ ¥®± ³§¨² ²³´£¸ ²´¦¦¤²³ ³§ ³ §¨¦§ °´ «¨³¸ ¡ ²¤¡ ««ȝ²®¥³¡ ««  ­£ ²®¢¢¤±ȝ¬´«³¨²¯®±³ ¥¨¤«£² ±¤¯±¤²¤­³ ³§¤ ¦±¤ ³¤²³  ±¤ ² ®¥ ¬ ±ª¤³ ­¤¤£ ¨­ ³§¤ %´¦¤­¤ȃ 3¯±¨­¦¥¨¤«£  ±¤ ȁ ! ²¨­¦«¤Ǿ §¨¦§ °´ «¨³¸ ¢®¬¯«¤· ¢®´«£ ¡¤ £¤²¨¦­¤£ ³® £¤«¨µ¤± ³§¤²¤ ¥¨¤«£² ³® ¦¤­¤± ³¤ ²´²³ ¨­ ¡«¤ ±¤µ¤­´¤²Ǿ ² ³¨²¥¸ ´­¬¤³ «®¢ « ­¤¤£²Ǿ  ««®¶ ¥®± ³§¤ ¦±®¶³§ ®¥ «®¢ « ²¯®±³²Ǿ  ­£ ±¤¢±¤ ³¨®­ ¯±®¦± ¬¬¨­¦Ǿ  ­£ ¦¤­¤± ³¤ ¨­¢±¤¬¤­³ « ¤¢®­®¬¨¢ ¨¬¯ ¢³ ³§±®´¦§ ³§¤  ³³± ¢³¨®­ ®¥ ­¤¶ ­®­ȃ«®¢ « The City of Eugene and Travel Lane County are currently collaborating to complete Phase 2 of the Feasibility Study. Results of Phase 2, completed within the next 90 days, will give clearer information on Site Analysis, Construction Costs, Financial Operations Analysis, and Economic Impact. CFFS|M2016 ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY CE,O ITY OF UGENEREGON CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Copyright © May2016, The Trust for Public Land. All rights reserved. Cover photo: Owen Wozniak. 2TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Table of Contents3 Introduction5 Executive Summary6 Overview8 Demographics and Economy...............................................................................8 Needs Assessment..............................................................................................9 Recent Issues....................................................................................................12 Choosing a Local Funding Strategy13 Local Conservation Finance Ballot Measures in Oregon...................................13 General Obligation Bonds..................................................................................14 Local Option Property Tax Levy.........................................................................16 Parks Service Fee..............................................................................................19 Restaurant Tax..................................................................................................21 Transient Room Tax..........................................................................................22 Marijuana Tax....................................................................................................23 Election Trends26 Upcoming Elections...........................................................................................27 City Government28 Appendices29 Appendix A: Revenue Options Summary...........................................................30 Appendix B: General Obligation Bond Implementation, Ballot Language Requirements, and Examples...............................................................................32 Appendix C: Property Tax Implementation, Ballot Language Requirements, and Examples..............................................................................................................35 TTPL::CFD3 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Appendix D: Service Fee Implementation, Ballot Language Requirements, and Example................................................................................................................38 Appendix E: Restaurant Tax Implementation, Ballot Language Requirements, and Example.........................................................................................................39 Appendix F: Transient Room Tax Implementation and Ballot Language Requirements........................................................................................................40 Appendix G: Marijuana Tax Implementation and Ballot Language Example......41 4TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY The Trust for Public Land is a national nonprofit land conservation organization working to protect land for human enjoyment and well-being. The Trust for Public Land helps conserve land for parks, greenways, recreation areas, watersheds and wilderness. Since 1972, the Trust for Public Land has protected more than 3 million acres and completed more than 5,200 park and conservation projects. To help public agencies or land trusts acquire land, the Trust for Public Land’s Conservation Finance program assists communities in identifying and securing public financing. The Trust for Public Land offers technical assistance to elected officials, public agencies, and community groups to design, pass, and implement public funding measures that reflect popular priorities. Helping communities to secure dedicated conservation funding is often the tipping point that can lead to deeper ecological responsibility, including more prudent land use, better managed growth, and the increased protection of natural landscapes. To stimulate engagement across jurisdictions and constituencies, the Trust for Public Land has historically found effective partnerships among a broad spectrum of players, from the environmental left to the fiscally conservative right, and recognizes that it is important to consistently explore new tools that can encourage and strengthen the willpower of the voters to seek dedicated conservation funds. This focused, up-front investment pays dividends over the long-term in voter-supported funding that is dedicated to conservation. Since 1996, the Trust for Public Land has been involved in nearly 500 successful ballot measures and 20 successful legislative campaigns that have created more than $57 billion in new funding for parks, restoration, and land conservation. Voters have approved 81 percent of the ballot measures assisted by the Trust for Public Land, including 12 successful measures in Oregon since 1996. Recent successes include the passage of a $68 million bond for park improvements and upgrades in the City of Portland in 2014, as well as the passage of a 5-year local option property levy of 9.6 cents per $1,000 for park improvement, operations, and maintenance in the Portland Metro special district in 2013.These measures passed with 74 and 56 percent support, respectively. In 2012, voters in the Bend Park and Recreation District approved a $29 million bond for the purpose of protecting natural areas, connecting trails, improving parks, and providing water safety. Also in 2012, a $20 million bond for the acquisition and improvement of parks, trails, watersheds, wildlife habitat, and other natural areas was passed by voters in the Willamalane Park and Recreation District. These measures passed with 52and 53 percent support, respectively. The City of Eugene has asked the Trust for Public Land to explore public funding options available for parks and recreationin the city. Given the substantial investment of time and resources required for a successful conservation finance initiative, preliminary research is essential to determine the feasibility of such an effort. This research provides a stand-alone, fact-based reference document 1,2 that can be used to evaluate financing mechanisms from an objective vantage point. If cityofficials decide to pursue a funding option, then such options should match political and fiscal realities in the city. A possible next step could be testing voter attitudes toward a specific set of funding proposals. The Trust for Public Land would then recommend conducting a public opinion survey that tests ballot language, tax tolerance, and program priorities of Eugene voters. 1 The contents of this report are based on the best available information at the time of research and drafting, March-April 2016. 2 This feasibility study is not a legal document and should not be relied upon as a legal opinion. TTPL::CFD5 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Many opportunities exist to fund parks and recreation in the City of Eugene. At the heart of the most successful funding programs is a substantial, long-term, dedicated source of local revenue. With a reliable source of funds, local governments can establish meaningful parks and recreation priorities that protect the most valuable resources, are geographically distributed, and otherwise meet important goals and values. Furthermore, local governments with significant funds are much better positioned to secure and leverage funding from the federal government and attract other local and state government or private philanthropic partners. Nationwide, a range of public financing options has been utilized to fund parks and open space preservation. These include general obligation bonds, the local sales tax, the property tax, and less frequently used mechanisms such as special assessment districts, real estate transfer taxes, impact fees, and income taxes. Communities in Oregon have traditionally been able to rely on a mix of funding due to the availability of state funding and local conservation funding measures. The property tax and general obligation bonds are the principal local revenue sources that could be permitted for conservation purposes in Oregon. Counties and municipalities are authorized to acquire land and easements for purposes including parks, trails, watershed protection, floodplain management, farmland, and cultural and historic preservation. In Oregon, municipalities rather than counties have largely undertaken conservation finance ballot measures. Most of these measures are bonds. This reportis intended to analyze mechanisms available to both the Parks and Open Space Division and the Recreation Division. It does not address the formation of a special district, as there are many legislative and political obstacles that would need to be overcome. Thus a special district is not included in the scope of this report. The report begins by analyzing several local public funding tools available to the City of Eugene, including revenue generating capacity, estimated costs to taxpayers, and implementation procedures. Each revenue option isavailable to bothParks and Recreation. The City of Eugene must determine whether to use the generated revenue for Parks, Recreation, or both divisions. These tools are summarized below, as well asin Appendix A. General Obligation Bonds: Bonds are the most utilized tool for parks capital purposes by local governments in Oregon. Generally, bond proceeds are limited to capital projects and may not be used for operations and maintenance purposes. The City of Eugene could issue a general obligation bond for $30 million at a cost of about $31 per householdper year. Voter approval is required. Local Option Property Tax Levy: In Oregon, three jurisdictions including Eugene have been successful in dedicating a property tax to parks and recreation. The City of Eugene could levy a local option property tax of $0.1616 per $1,000 of assessed value and generate approximately $2.5 million annually, at a cost of about $33per year for the average homeowner. Revenues may be used for operating and maintenance purposes. Voter approval is required. ParksServiceFee: The City of Eugene could implement a maintenance utilityor service feefor parksand recreation facilities. A monthly fee of $3 would generate about $2.5 million annually at a cost of $36per housing unit, not accounting for the costs of administering the fee, which could be substantial. Revenues may be used for operating and maintenance purposes. Several cities in Oregon have used this mechanism. For example, 6TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY the City of Medford assesses a monthly fee for operations, administration, maintenance, repair, improvement, renewal, replacement, and reconstruction of parks and recreation facilities, beautification, and right-of-way areas.The city council may implement a city service fee by ordinance or put a measure to the voters at an election. Restaurant Tax: The City of Eugene could implement a tax on meals and non-alcoholic beverages at restaurants. For example, a 1 percent tax could generate roughly $3.1 million per year, depending on restaurant sales and not taking into account the costs of administering the tax.Revenues may be used for operating and maintenance purposes. Two jurisdictions in Oregonlevy a tax on restaurant meals. The city council may implement a restaurant tax by ordinance. Transient Room Tax:An increase of 1 percent in Eugene’s TRTrate from 4.5 to 5.5 percent could net about $467,000 in revenue in a typical year. Assuming that 70 percent is used for tourism promotion and facilities according to state law, this leaves 30 percent of the net proceeds, or about $140,000, which would be available for city services such as parks and recreation.Revenues may be used for operating and maintenance purposes. During 2014, 85 cities and 15 counties in Oregon levied a locally administered transient room tax. The city council may increase the TRT and dedicate the new funds to parks and recreation by ordinance. Marijuana Tax: The City of Eugene might expect to generate roughly $200,000 per year from a 3 percent tax on recreational marijuana, not including the costs to administer the tax. Revenues may be used for operating and maintenance purposes. The city council has placed a measure on the November 2016 ballot; however, the revenues are not dedicated to any particular use. Voter approval is required. Several municipalities in Colorado impose local taxes on marijuana sales. Since 2013, 52 local Colorado jurisdictions have passed taxes on marijuana. In general, Oregon voters have shown support for funding parks and open space measures – approving 20 of 33 local funding questions (61 percent) since 1996. The most common finance mechanism utilized by local jurisdictions in the state is general obligation bonds, which accounted for 15of the successful ballot measures, followed by the property tax, and then the meals or restaurant tax. The City of Eugene has been highly supportiveof local parks and recreation measures. Creating a dedicated funding source in the city could help to address both capital and stewardship needs for parks and recreation. This report also provides a brief summary of election trends, upcoming elections, and government structure in the City of Eugene. TTPL::CFD7 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Home to more than 160,000 people, Eugene is Oregon's thirdlargest city. It covers approximately 43.8square miles, with the Willamette River running through the heart of the city and the McKenzie River joining the Willamette to the north of town. The elevation is 426 feet above sea level and the city's topography features Skinner Butte to the north of downtown and the south, the 3 landmark Spencer Butte, now a 310-acre city park. Demographicsand Economy In 2015, Eugene’s population for the entire Urban Growth Boundary (as defined in the Needs Assessment, includes the City of Eugene and some surrounding areas) was 185,000. Over the next 20 years, it is estimated to grow to approximately 219,000, an increase of 18 percent. According to the city’s comprehensive planning effort, Envision Eugene, this growth will primarily occur within 4 the existing urban area, increasing the development density of the city. The table below contains general demographic information for Eugene, compared to Oregon and the United States. 4.6%4.8%4.1% Population, % change -April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015 White alone85.8%83.6%72.4% Black or African American alone1.4%1.8%12.6% American Indian and Alaska Native alone1.0%1.4%0.9% Asian alone4.0%3.7%4.8% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone0.2%0.3%0.2% Two orMore Races4.7%3.8%2.9% Hispanic or Latino*7.8%11.7%16.3% *Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. $237,000 $234,100 $175,700 Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2010-2014 11.5%14.9%20.9% Language other than English spoken at home, % of persons age 5 years+, 2010-2014 93.3%89.5%86.3% High school graduate or higher, % of persons age 25 years+, 2010-2014 39.9%30.1%29.3% Bachelor's degree or higher, % of persons age 25 years+, 2010-2014 $42,715$50,521 $53,482 Median household income (in 2014 dollars), 2010-2014 24.4%16.6%14.8% Persons in poverty, % Sources: US Census QuickFacts, Portland State University http://www.pdx.edu/prc/population-reports-estimates 3 https://www.eugene-or.gov/1383/About-Eugene 4 City of Eugene Parksand Recreation System Needs Assessment Report 8TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY At the heart of the Eugene economy are the homegrown small- and medium-sized businesses. Most of Eugene’s businesses employ fewer than 20 workers. Including sole proprietorships and limited 5 partnerships, there are more than 10,000 businesses in and around Eugene. Eugene’s top ten principal employers are shown in the table below. PeaceHealth Medical Group 5,5003.45% University of Oregon 5,4063.39% US Government 1,5750.99% City of Eugene 1,3690.86% Springfield School District 1,2830.80% Lane County 1,2790.80% State of Oregon 1,2290.77% Eugene School District 4J1,1630.73% Lane Community College 1,0090.63% McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center 8950.56% Source: City of Eugene 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Needs Assessment Eugene’s Parks and Recreation divisions fall under separate departments. Parks and Open Space, which manages the city’s parks and natural areas, is part of the Public Works Department. Recreation, which provides many community programs and operates the city’s pools and community centers, is part of the Library, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. In 2015, the two divisionsworked together to produce a needs assessment report for the parks and recreation system. This system is comprised of 3,745 acres of natural areas, 48 neighborhood parks, 19 community and metropolitan parks, 6 community centers, 3 pools, 87 miles of paths and trails, and 6,000 programs and events per year. Each year, the system sees 9.3 million park visits and 2.7 6 million recreation facility visits by adults. Eugene has 26 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.To assess Eugene’s park and recreation needs, a comprehensive report was undertaken and issued in January 2016. Over the past 16 years, Eugene residents have passed two bond measures that supported nearly doubling the acreage within the park system. While this expansion added great value for future residents and their park opportunities, there is a growing challenge. During those 16 years, the park maintenance budget has remained at virtually the same pre-expansion levels, leading to an annual gap of approximately $1.5 million in funding for annual maintenance and operations of parks. Contributing to this gap are a series of budget reductions, combined with the costs of maintenance deferrals and increases in vandalism, graffiti, and illegal camping. The result of these funding shortages persisting over many years is a cumulative backlog of deferred maintenance capital projects totaling nearly $24 million. In order to reduce costs, the Parks and Open Space Division has made adjustments including reductions in turf watering in neighborhood parks, mowing of sports fields, and materials for trail maintenance. Three park restrooms were also closed. 5 http://web.eugenechamber.com/business/ratings_reports.aspx 6 City of Eugene Parks and Recreation System Needs Assessment Report TTPL::CFD9 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Examples of aging park infrastructure include play equipment reaching the end of its useful life, broken and worn out park furniture, bark running trails that are not up to safety and usability standards, cracked and unsafe concrete paths, and restrooms needing repairs and aesthetic upgrades. While the city has managed to extend the life of these types of amenities for many years, eventually they will need to be removed or closed if funding for maintenance remains limited. Maintenance of natural areas through trail maintenance, vegetation management and habitat enhancement is an ongoing expense needed to keep these areas safe and protect and sustain the 7 natural beauty valued by the community. Like most city services, operating funds for recreation programming were trimmed through the recession years.This reduction has impacted the level of service that recreation currently provides. Additional funding would be needed in the future to meet these service gaps: meeting the growing challenge of serving seniors and people with disabilities; providing additional scholarships for low-income families; expanding school district partnerships to provide after-school programming; and staffing new community centers or pools in currently underserved areas. Five of Eugene’s six community centers were built in the late 1960s and 70s (averaging 45 years old). By current standards, they have a relatively small average size of 8,500 square feet. In addition to their size, the quality and condition of the facilities reflect their age and lack of financial investment in renovation or expansion. As a result, most centers are in need of rehabilitation, are costly to maintain, and do not have the capacity or the flexibility to meet growing community programming needs. The city has identified a backlog for approximately $10 million in rehabilitation needs in these facilities. Two of the city’s three pools were built in the late 1960s and are now 48 years old. The newest pool, which was expanded and renovated in 2001, is only open six months each year, as it is an outdoor pool. This places the burden of aquatic services through the winter months on the two older pools, which are both in need of major renovation. Many of the primary systems of both pools (plumbing, electrical, HVAC, furnishings) are beyond their expected useful life. The plumbing system in one pool complex needed its plumbing system replaced two years ago, and the 8 other could failat any time. Funding for renovating or replacing park and recreation amenities and facilities is limited, and, because of the magnitude of the need, will require voter-approved bond funding or another large source of capital dollars dedicated to specific projects. Ongoing sources of maintenance-eligible facility replacement funds are relatively limited when compared to the backlog of work needing to be addressed. Small amounts of the city’s General Fund and developer impactfees are allowed to be dedicated to park renovation work, but in general, Community Centers, Parks and Pools tend to be managed to maintain infrastructure in its current state for as long as possible. Available capital dollars for maintenance-based re-construction in Parks has been focused almost solely on projects 7 City of Eugene Parks and Recreation System Needs Assessment Report 8 City of Eugene Parks and Recreation System Needs Assessment Report 10TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY that will reduce maintenance or make maintenance more sustainable over the long term, such as conversion of large landscape planting beds to lawn areas and conversion of sand play surfacing in playgrounds to wood fiber chips. In general, the inability of the city to adequately fund ongoing park maintenance and to be able to significantly invest in renovation and updating of existing community center facilities and pools has contributed to the acceleration of aging infrastructure and often, reduction in park and 9 recreation system services.This lack of adequate on-going maintenance funding has also halted construction of new facilities on land the city already owns, due to insufficient capacity to maintain additional facilities. The table below summarizes the current annual operating and maintenance(O&M) budget of the Parks and Open Space and Recreation Divisions, as well as estimated O&M expenses for potential future parks andrecreationfacilities. For example, a new 4-acre neighborhood park could be expected to cost $60,000 per year to maintain. While Recreation has quantified a shortfall in the 2016O&M budget, services have been reduced to accommodate reduced funding. The ongoing future maintenance and operations expenses should be considered when planning to develop or construct any new parks or recreation facilities. This table includes expenses only and does not account for any revenue generated by and for these services, such as recreation fees and stormwater charges. FY2016 Operating Budget*$6,265,279FY2016 Operating Budget$9,993,203 O&M Shortfall$1,500,000 Source: City of Eugene FY 2016 Budget *Does not include Stormwater Utility funds. New 4-acre Neighborhood Park$60,000 New 40-acre Community Park$750,000 New 100-acre Natural Area$50,000 New Community Center/Pool Complex$2,500,000 Parks Systems Development Charges Systems Development Charges (SDCs) are a type of development impact fee that is authorized by state statutes and Eugene’s city charter for the purpose of collecting revenues to help fund development of urban infrastructure that supports and serves new growth. SDCs have been collected in Eugene since 1978, and provide funds for transportation, wastewater, stormwater, and park system infrastructure. These funds are generated bya fee assessed to new residential and commercial development. Each type of infrastructure has its own SDC methodology adopted by the city council. As specified in the Parks SDC Methodology, the majority of funds generated by the Parks SDC (77 percent) may only be used to fund park infrastructure that increases capacity to serve new growth, while a smaller percentage (23 percent)may be used to renovate existing 9 City of Eugene Parks and Recreation System Needs Assessment Report TTPL::CFD11 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY 10 facilities to maintain their capacity.The current net parks SDC per unit for a single-family home 11 is $3,953. Currently, there is approximately $7.8million in collected Parks SDCs dedicated to new capacity that the city cannot responsibly spend because it does not have the resources to maintain any additional parks or facilities. Once the gap in operations and maintenance funding has been closed, the city will be able to spend theParks SDC funds on new parks and facilities in good conscience. Recent Issues In 2006, Eugene voters passed a $27.5 million bond for parks and open space. As of early 2016, about $22 million of the authorized bond funds have been spent on projects authorized under the bond language. Due to a higher incidence of willing sellers, available sites, and lower land costs, more land has been acquired in the ridgeline system on the south side of the city than on the north side of the city. This has resulted in total expenditure of nearly $3 million more in bond funds on the south side of the city than on the north side. Local news reports indicate that there may be some 12 citizen concern about where the funds have been spent. Furthermore, the acquisition and development of parks, community centers, and pools has not kept pace with urban growth and development in newer areas of the city, including the north, west and southwest parts of Eugene. While progress has been made to acquire parkland in these areas, much of it remains undeveloped, due to a lack of funding. Both the north and southwest areas lack community centers and pools. The Needs Assessment identified geographical areas which are underserved in terms of access to parks and recreation facilities. Further research is needed to calculate how many residents live in these underserved areas. 10 System Development Charge Methodologies, Appendix E Excerpt (Park System Details), https://www.eugene- or.gov/2247/Systems-Development-Charges 11 Parks SCD Unit Rates, https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/20783 12 http://registerguard.com/rg/opinion/34200649-78/city-has-parkland-promises-to-keep.html.csp# 12TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Generally, there are three broad-based types of revenue sources available to local governments to pay for parks and recreation: discretionary annual spending (i.e. budget appropriation), creation of dedicated funding streams such as voter-approved special taxesor fees, and the issuance of bonds. The financing options utilized by a community will depend on a variety of factors such as taxing capacity, budgetary resources, voter preferences, and political will. While most local governments can create funding for parks and recreation through their budgetary process, this either happens infrequently or does not yield adequate funding. In the Trust for Public Land’s experience, local governments that create funding via the budget process provide substantially less funding than those that create funding through ballot measures. As elected officials go through the process of making critical budgetary decisions, funding for parks and recreation lags behind other public purposes and well behind what voters would support. It is often quite difficult to raise taxes without an indisputable public mandate for the intended purpose. The power of conservation finance ballot measures is they provide a tangible means to implement a local government’s vision. With their own funding, local governments are better positioned to secure scarce funding from state or federal governments or private philanthropic partners. Having a predictable funding source empowers the municipality, county, or special district to establish long- term conservation priorities that protect the most valuable resources, are geographically distributed, and otherwise meet important community goals and values. Nationwide, a range of public financing options has been utilized by local jurisdictions to fund parks and recreation, including general obligation bonds, the local sales tax, and the property tax. Less frequently used mechanisms have included real estate transfer taxes, impact fees, and income taxes. The ability of local governments and special districts to establish dedicated funding sources depends upon state enabling authority. Conservation finance measures are not right for every local government or they might not be the best approach at the moment. Budget appropriations and other revenue mechanisms that can be implemented by the local government, such as developer impact fees, may well serve as short-term funding options while parks and recreation proponents develop a strategy and cultivate broad support for longer-term financing options. Local Conservation FinanceBallot Measuresin Oregon The property tax and general obligation bonds are the principal local, voter-approvedrevenue sources that could be permitted for conservation purposes in Oregon. Counties and municipalities are authorized to acquire land and easements for purposes including parks, trails, watershed protection, floodplain management, farmland, and cultural and historic preservation. These mechanisms have different requirements forauthorization. In Oregon, municipalities rather than counties have largely undertaken conservation finance ballot measures. Most of these measures are 13 bonds, which can only be used for capital expenses. The property tax may be used to fund operations and maintenance. 13 The Trust for Public Land’s Conservation Almanac Database TTPL::CFD13 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Oregon voters have shown support for funding parks and open space measures – approving 20 of 33local funding questions (61 percent) since 1996. The most common finance mechanism utilized by local jurisdictions in the state is general obligation bonds, which accounted for 15 of the successful ballot measures. Two jurisdictions, the City of Portland and the Portland Metro special 14 district, have passed local option property taxes for parks and land conservation. Bond22$562,345,00015 Local Option Property Tax8$99,400,0002 Constitutional Amendment2 $2,440,000,0002 Meals Tax1 $30,000,0001 Total33$3,131,745,00020 Source: The Trust for Public Land's LandVote Database.The LandVote database tracks ballot measures that include significant funding for land acquisition. General Obligation Bonds Upon voter approval, a city may issue general obligation bonds to finance capital construction or capital improvements, such as land acquisition or building construction. Generally, bond proceeds 15 are limited to capital projects and may not be used for operations and maintenance purposes. An Oregoncity many not issue or have outstanding at the time of issuance general obligation bonds in a principal amount that exceeds three percent of the real market value of the taxable property 16 within its boundaries. The city determines the maturity dates for bonds to provide for short-term, interim, or long-term borrowing and establishes the principal amounts, interest rates, and other 17 terms and conditions of the bonds. In order to pay the principal of and interest on outstanding general obligation bonds, the city levies annually an ad valorem property tax on the taxable property within the boundaries of the city. The revenues of this levy many only be used to pay the principal of and interest on the general 18 obligation bond. Property taxes imposed to pay the principal and interest on voter-approved general obligation bonds for capital construction or improvements are not subject to the property 19 tax limits of Measure 5. Measure 5 limitations are discussed further in the following section on the Property Tax. General obligation bonds are a popular finance mechanism for funding land conservation in Oregon. Since 1996, several municipalities in Oregon, including Eugene, have passed general obligation bonds for parks and recreation. See Appendix B for examplesof municipal bond ballot language. 14 The Trust for Public Land’s LandVote Database 15 Federal IRS rules governing the issuance of tax-exempt bonds limit the use of proceeds to capital purposes such that only a small fraction of bond funds may be used for maintenance or operations of facilities. Stateand local laws may further limit the use of bond proceeds. 16 Unless the city charter provides a lesser limitation; Oregon Revised Statutes §287A.050 17 Oregon Revised Statutes §287A.300 18 Oregon Revised Statutes §287A.140 19 Oregon Constitution Article XI Section 11b 14TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Portland11/4/2014Bond for park improvements and upgrades$68,000,000 74% Bend Park and Bond to protect natural areas, connect trails, improve 11/6/2012$29,000,000 52% Recreation Districtparks and provide water safety Willamalane Park Bond for the acquisition and improvement of parks, and Recreation 11/6/2012trails, watersheds, wildlife habitat and other natural $20,000,000 53% Districtareas Tigard11/2/2010Bond for the acquisition of parkland$17,000,000 52% Cannon Beach5/19/2009Bond for the protection of Ecola Creek watershed$4,000,000 51% Tualatin Hills Park Bond for new parks, land acquisition, trails, and facility and Recreation 11/4/2008$100,000,000 51% renovation District Bond to preserve natural areas, and protect water Metro-Portland11/7/2006$227,400,000 59% quality, fish and wildlife habitats Eugene11/7/2006Bond to acquire parks and open space$27,490,000 59% Measure 3-93; Bond for parks, open space and Lake Oswego11/5/2002$9,750,000 58% pathways Corvallis11/7/2000Bond issue for open space acquisition$7,900,000 65% Roseburg11/3/1998Bonds for parks and trails$2,500,000 55% Measure No. 3-20, Bond for open space, sports field Lake Oswego11/3/1998$13,000,000 60% renovation Ballot Measure 20-30, Bond for Parkland Acquisition, Eugene11/3/1998$25,305,000 67% Sports Field, Swimming Pool West Linn11/3/1998Measure 3-37, Bond for Parks, Recreation$8,000,000 51% Lincoln City11/3/1998Bond measure for open space acquisition$3,000,000 52% Source: The Trust for Public Land's LandVote Database Eugene’s outstanding indebtedness from voter approved general obligation bonds totaled $19 million at the end of Fiscal Year 2015. The city’s general obligation debt is rated “Aa1” by Moody’s Investors Service, indicating strong credit and low risk. The State of Oregon limits debt to 3 percent of real market value. However, the City of Eugene has debt policiesthatfurther limit the available debt capacity in order to reflect a more affordable level of debt that could be Real Market Value$22,488,946,078 issued. The Budget Committee and city Debt Capacity -1% of Real Market Value$224,889,461 council have adopted debt guidelines that Outstanding Debt($18,990,300) limit net direct debt to 1 percent of real Debt reserve$354,949 market value.The table to the rightdepicts Net Debt Subject to 1% limitation($18,635,351) the city’s debt capacity and indicates the Marginal Capacity$206,254,110 amount of marginal capacity available. Source: City of Eugene, FY2016 Budget, FY2015 Eugene has ample capacity to issue bonds Comprehensive Annual Financial Report under the debt limits. TTPL::CFD15 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY The table below includes the general obligation bond projections from a variety of potential debt issuances displaying the average household cost for each. For example, the City of Eugene could issue $30 million in general obligation bonds at a cost of about $31 per year for the typical homeowner based on an average home assessed value of $189,821. This would represent a property tax increase of $0.1613 per $1000 of assessed value. See Appendix B for implementation procedures and ballot language requirements. $10,000,000$735,8180.0538$10 $20,000,000$1,471,6350.1075$20 $30,000,000$2,207,4530.1613$31 $40,000,000$2,943,2700.2151$41 $50,000,000$3,679,0880.2688$51 $70,000,000$5,150,7230.3764$71 $100,000,000$7,358,1750.5377$102 Assumes a 20-year bond issue at 4.0% interestrate Total taxable assessed value = $13,685,478,306, Lane County Assessment and Taxation *Average assessed value = $189,821, Lane County Assessment and Taxation The Trust for Public Land’s bond cost calculations provide an estimate of debt service, tax increase, and cost to the average homeowner in the community of potential bond issuances for land conservation. Assumptions include the following: the entire debt amount is issued in the first year and payments are equal until maturity; 20-year maturity; and a4percent interest rate. Property tax estimates assume that the city would increase property taxes to pay the debt service on bonds; however, other revenue streams may be used. The cost per household represents the average annual impact of increased property taxes levied to pay the debt service. The estimates do not take into account growth in the tax base due to new construction and annexation over the life of the bonds, the property tax collection rate, or the costs of issuing the bonds. The jurisdiction’s officials, financial advisors, bond counsel and underwriters would establish the actual terms. 20 Local Option Property TaxLevy While property tax revenue makes up only a portion of most city budgets, it is usually a critical resource supporting daily operations. Both the Oregon Constitution and Oregon Revised Statutes limit the amount and types of tax a city may impose. The first property tax limitation came in 1990 with the passage of Ballot Measure 5. Article XI, Section 11(b), Oregon Constitution. Ballot Measure 5 imposed a tax rate limit on local governments: one for schools (kindergarten through community colleges), and one for all other local governments. Oregon local governments are limited to billing each property tax account no more than $10.00 per $1,000 of real market value (RMV) plus any voter approved general obligation bonded debt (school districts have a $5.00 limit). Ballot Measure 50 was adopted by the voters in November 1996. Measure 50 created a new property tax system by repealing the tax base system and replacing it with a permanent tax rate system with some local options and the concept of maximum assessed value. The measure set the 20 The property tax overview was largely excerpted from League of Oregon Cities, City Handbook, May 2013 16TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY maximum assessed value for each property in 1997 equal to 90 percent of the 1995-96 real market value and placed a cap on assessed value (AV) growth of 3 percent annually, except for new construction, subdivision, remodeling, rezoning, loss of special assessment or exemption. Because assessed values were initially established at levels below real marketvalues, and because the real estate market has appreciated at a rate of more than three percent in most years since Ballot Measure 50 passed, the assessed values of many properties are substantially lower than their real market values. This means that assessed values may continue to increase even though the real market value of a property can be falling as a result of current market conditions. When the total of a local government (non-school) tax rates on a property for all purposes except payment of general obligation bonds exceed $10 per $1,000 of real market value, the property is said to be in compression. All property tax levies except levies for general obligation bonds are subject to compression. Local option levies are subject to “special compression.” This means that local option levies are reduced (to zero if necessary) before other levies are reduced to bring the total tax on the property down to the Measure 5 limit. Compression is calculated separately for each property, so it is possible for one property to be in compression, and for the neighboring property not to be. A city may determine through the budget process that it needs additional funds to operate. State law allows for local option levies, either for a specific or general purpose.Local option levies for operating purposes may only extend for five years. Levies for capital purposes may extend for ten years or the useful life of the project, whichever is shorter. Levy authority can be expressed as a target total dollar amount or as a rate per thousand. Local option levies can be structured as either a fixed dollar amount per year for the term of the levy or as a fixed rate per thousand dollars of assessed value. There are pros and cons to each approach and a government should carefully weigh these as they decide what to put forth to the voters. Eugene has used both approaches in past levies, and the library local option levy recently approved by voters was structured as a fixed dollar levy. Since 1996, twojurisdictions in Oregon have passed local option levies for parks and land acquisition.The City of Eugene has passed two recreation property tax levies: On November 7, 2000, Eugene voters passed Ballot Measure 20-37, a two-year, $3.5 million local option tax levy, to fund youth activities. The levy expired on June 30, 2003. On November 5, 2002, Eugene voters passed Ballot Measure 20-67, a four year, $0.86 per $1,000 of assessed value local option levy expected to raise approximately $8 million. Of this amount, 7 percent was retained by the city to directly provide youth services, and the remaining 93 percent was split between the 4J and Bethel school districts based upon their relative share of assessed value within the City of Eugene (83 percent to 4J and 17 percent to Bethel). These school district funds were used to provide five categories of services historically supported by the city. See Appendix C for examples of local option levyballot language. TTPL::CFD17 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY 5-year local option levy of $0.096 per $1,000 for park Portland Metro5/21/2013 $50,000,000 56% improvement and operations and maintenance 5-year $0.39 per $1,000 assessed value property tax increase Portland11/5/2002for park services, repairs, maintenance, and recreation $49,400,000 65% programs 5-year $0.86 per $1000 tax rate for schools and youth Eugene11/5/2002$29,200,000 54% recreation Eugene11/7/20002-year $3.5 million per year for recreation services$7,000,000 64% Sources: The Trust for Public Land's LandVote Database, City of Eugene Local options levies for operating purposes provide local governments with the possibility of collecting additional operating dollars from property taxes beyond the permanent levy. Although these collections are subject to Measure 50 compression, local option levies may present the most 21 significant, efficient and equitable form of revenue raising options for local governments.Local option levies for operating purposes may only extend for five years. In November 2015, voters in the City of Eugene approved a five-year local option levy to fund expanded Eugene Public Library services. The levy will raise $2.7 million annually for five years (about $36 per year for a typical Eugene property tax statement, or about 17 cents per $1,000 22 assessed value). In May 2016, LaneCounty voters passed a levy to fund Oregon State University Extension Service's local programs. The levy will pay staff salaries and fund programs such as 4-H, Master Gardener, Master Food Preserver and others over the next five years. Property owners countywide will be charged a tax of 1.5cents per $1,000 of assessed value. The owner of a home assessed at $200,000 will pay an extra $3 a year under the levy. The levy is projected to send an estimated 23 $426,000 in tax revenue to the Extension Service in the first fiscal year, starting in July 2016. Local option levies can be used for capital purposes. Levies for capital purposes can extend up to the lesser of 10 years or the useful life of the financed capital items. Capital items can include any capitalizable asset, including items that are specifically excluded from general obligation debt by Measure 50.Capital local options levies are rarely seen in Oregon. Because the levy is subject to the same voter approval requirement as GO bonds but the revenue stream is subject to the Measure 5 tax rate limits, municipalities tend to favor GO bond authority over the local option levy. However, because general obligation bond proceeds are more limited in usage, some jurisdictions have opted for local option levies to pay for things that would otherwise be disallowed under 24 general obligation bond provisions (for example, supplies and equipment). 21 League of Oregon Cities, Debt Issuance Manual, September 2007 22 https://www.eugene-or.gov/2984/FIVE-YEAR-LIBRARY-LOCAL-OPTION-LEVY 23 City of Eugene, personal communication 24 League of Oregon Cities, Debt Issuance Manual, September 2007 18TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY The City of Eugene levies its permanent tax rate of $7.0058 per $1,000 of taxable assessed value; although the effective tax rate paid in FY2016 is expected to be about $6.90 per $1,000 of assessed 25 value due to the impact of the urban renewal tax increment calculation on overlapping tax rates. The table to the rightsummarizes the estimated revenues and costs ofvarious levels of mill increase. For example, anincrease of $0.1616per $1000 of assessed value would generate roughly $2.5 million per year at a cost of $33per year for 0.0970$1,500,000 $20 the average household, 0.1293$2,000,000 $27 notwithstanding any Measure 5 0.1616$2,500,000 $33 compression. See Appendix C for 0.1939$3,000,000 $40 implementation procedures and ballot 0.2263$3,500,000 $47 language requirements. Parks Service Fee City serviceor utilityfees are typically set to recover part or all of the costs of a group of services broadly accessed by occupants of property in a city, such as police, fire, and parks. These fees are billed to persons who occupy or have use of developed property. Unlike electricity, water, stormwater,and sewer utility services, such a fee would fund services that are not delivered directly to the property and are not directly measurable. The purpose of the fee is to provide stable 26 funding to ensure the services remain available to the community.Several municipalities in Oregon have adopted service fees to supplement various city services, including public safety services, such as police and fire departments, and parks and recreation. City service fees may be imposed by ordinance or by placing a measure on the ballot. The City of Eugene currently imposes stormwater andwastewater service fees. These feesare included in customers’ monthly water bills. A flat service fee for parks and recreation could be added to the monthly statements in a similar manner. In this case, the city would need to work with 27 the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) to include a fee on the utility’s bills.While the stormwater and wastewater fees arerequired to be collected by EWEB under the city charter, there is no such requirement for other types of fees, and EWEB would have to agree to collect the fee. Alternatively, the city could develop and implement a billing process separate from EWEB; however, administrative costs would be much higher and the collection rate would likely be lower. It is also possible to structure the fee in order to provide reduced fees for multi-family housing, low-income households, and seniors, as other municipalities have done when implementing a service fee. A measure on the May 2013 ballot asked Eugene voters if they would rather pay a capped, monthly service fee to maintain funding for certain community services, or have those services reduced or 28 eliminated. The fee was defeated at the ballot, with only 33 percent support. If approved, the measure would have authorized a monthly fee to maintain public safety services, homeless and 25 City of Eugene FY2016 Budget 26 Revenue Team, Report to the City of Eugene Budget Committee, April 2014, http://eugene-or.gov/2582/Revenue-Team 27 EWEB is an administrative unit of the City of Eugene, Oregon (the City) with responsibilities for operation of the water and electric utilities delegated by City Charter to the publicly elected board of five commissioners. 28 Revenue Team, Report to the City of EugeneBudget Committee, April 2014, http://eugene-or.gov/2582/Revenue-Team TTPL::CFD19 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY basic human services, and quality of life services including parks and recreation. The 2013 proposed City Service Fee would have been a flat fee, capped at a maximum of $10 per month for residential and $30 per month for nonresidential property. The actual fee would have been set by council and could be less than the cap. To produce the $5.3 million needed to fund the specified services, it was anticipated that the actual monthly fee would be less than the cap. Actual revenue yield would depend on how the fee was implemented in an ordinance that was never drafted because the measure failed. The person who was responsible for paying the stormwater sewer service charges would have been the responsible party for paying the City Service Fee. It would have been levied on developed property, with different rates for residential and nonresidential units. The measure would also have required Council to establish a program for assistance to low 29,30 income individuals.The ballot language from this measure can be found in Appendix D. In 2005, the Medford city council approved Ordinance 2005-120 establishing a monthly fee per unit to be billed via the Medford water bill. Each developed parcel in the City of Medford is assessed afeeper unitper month. Ordinance 2005-120 states that the person paying the city's water utility charges shall pay the fee. The fee commences upon connection to the water system, 31 completion, occupancy, or use of improvements; whichever comes first. The City of Medford operates its own water utility, so it was able to easily administer the new fee as an addition to the existing billing system. Revenues from the monthly fee can be used for operations, administration, maintenance, repair, improvement, renewal, replacement and reconstruction of parks facilities, beautification, and right- 32 of-way areas. The monthly Park Utility Fund fee, currently $2.95, is charged for each occupied 33 residential dwelling unit, business unit or tenant space. Several other cities also impose a utility fee for parks. The table below summarizes the amount and structure of the fee for selected examplecities. Charged per water meter for all residential and non-residential users, except multifamily, Central Point$1.00 which is $0.50 per unit Charged per unit to single-family homes, multi-family property owners, and businesses; Gresham$7.5095% of proceeds used to support Public Safety services; remaining 5% goes toward Parks; 4.1% vacancy discount for unoccupied multi-family units Charged for each occupied residential dwelling unit, business unit, or tenant space; fee not Medford$2.95 assessed when property is unoccupied Talent$3.00Charged per unit for all residential and non-residential units on developed property Charged per unit for all residential and non-residential units; ~$7.00 for business customers, Tigard$3.75based on number of parking spaces; fee-reduction program for qualifying low-income households who earn 50 percent of the state median income. West Linn$13.01Charged to residents only, per household 29 http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/CAO/Operations/CountyClerk/elections/Documents/backup/20-211.pdf 30 Revenue Team, Report to the City of Eugene Budget Committee, April 2014, http://eugene-or.gov/2582/Revenue-Team 31 http://www.ci.medford.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=1065 32 http://www.fcsgroup.com/news/documents/ParkImpactDG.pdf 33 http://www.ci.medford.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=1065 20TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY The table below summarizes the estimated revenues and costs of various levels of service or maintenance utility fees. For example, Eugene could institute a flat-rate fee of $3 per month per unit, which would cost each housing unit approximately $36 annually, and would generate roughly $2.5 million per year from residential units alone, not including a low income assistance program or any factor for non-payment or administration of the fee, which could be substantial.Further research is needed to calculate the additional revenue that could be generated from non-residential units, as well as the effects of any reduced fee programs. The proposed service fee in 2013 would have been set by the city council to generate $5.3 million, with a maximum fee of $10 per month for residential properties and $30 per month for businesses. See Appendix D for implementation procedures and ballot language requirements. $169,951$839,412$12 $269,951$1,678,824$24 $369,951$2,518,236$36 $469,951$3,357,648$48 $569,951$4,197,060$60 *US Census QuickFacts **Excludes low incomeassistance program, any factor for non-payment of the fees, and the cost of administering the fee. Restaurant Tax A retail sales tax is an excise tax levied on a range of goods and services at the point of final sale to an end-user or consumer. It can beimposed as a general sales tax applying to a broad range of goods and services. It can also be made quite narrow and selective in the range of goods and services subject to the tax.Oregon state law prevents local retail sales taxes on alcohol and tobacco products. Oregon has no general retail sales taxes, but a number of selective local retail sales taxes are in place. For example,Ashland and Yachats have city-wide retail sales taxes on restaurant 34 meals. These are taxes on food and non-alcoholic beverages served by restaurants. In November 2009, voters in the City of Ashland approved a 5 percent meals tax extension, with 80 percent of the revenuedevoted to sewage capital projects and 20 percent for open space purchases. This measure is expected to generate $30 million over its 20-year lifespan, of which $6 million is 35 set aside for open space purchases, and was approved with 59 percent support. See Appendix E for the ballot language used in this measure. In March 1993, the City of Eugene proposed a 3 percentrestaurant tax to be used as a general revenue source. The measure failed with only 40 percent voter support. 36 Ashland’s 5 percent meals tax generates roughly $2 million per year.If a similar5 percent tax was imposed in Eugene, it could be expected to generate revenues close to $15.5 million, based on 34 Revenue Team, Report to the City of Eugene Budget Committee, April 2014, http://eugene-or.gov/2582/Revenue-Team 35 The Trust for Public Land’s LandVote Database 36 http://www.bendbulletin.com/entertainment/restaurants/1457291-151/sales-tax-islands TTPL::CFD21 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY the $97per capita generated in Ashland. This estimate is in line with a 2014 report from the City of Eugene Revenue Team, 1%$3,100,000 which estimated that a 5 percentrestaurant 3%$9,300,000 tax would raise approximately $15.5 5%$15,500,000 million annually, based on a 2007 Source: City of Eugene, Revenue Team Report Economic Census report of restaurant sales *Does not include cost of administration. 37 in the city. Thus, a 1 percent tax could be expected to generate roughly $3.1 million per year. This tax would be borne by visitors as well as residents. Further research is needed to determine what portion of the revenue would be generated by visitors. See Appendix E for implementation and ballot language requirements. Transient Room Tax Transient lodging taxes (TLT), or the Transient Room Tax (TRT) in Eugene, are one of the most direct means for jurisdictions to collect revenues from visitors. During 2014, 85 cities and 15 counties in Oregon levied a locally administered TLT. This tax, ranging from 2 percent to 13.5 percent, is collected on the sale (i.e., rental) of a room at a lodging establishment such as a hotel, 38 motel, bed and breakfast, or at a campground site or RV park. Oregon recently raised the state lodging tax of 1 percent to 1.8 percent for four years, beginning in July 2016, and to 1.5 percent 39 after that. To fund the promotion of tourism, the 2003 Legislative Assembly (HB 2267) established a statewide transient lodging tax and the Oregon Tourism Commission. Transient lodging was defined as “hotel, motel and inn dwelling units that are designed for temporary overnight human occupancy, and includes spaces designed for parking recreational vehicles during periods of human occupancy of those vehicles.” The law required the Oregon Tourism Commission to use at least 80 percent of lodging tax net receipts to fund state tourism marketing programs and up to 15 percent to 40 implement regional tourism marketing programs. For new or increased local government lodging taxes imposed by cities and/or counties, the law required that at least 70 percent of net revenue be used to fund tourism promotion or tourism related facilities. The law also required that new or increased local lodging taxes allow for at least 5 percent of the tourism revenues to be retained by lodging providers to cover tax collection 41 administrative costs.This leaves 30percent which can be used for city services, such as parks and 42 recreation. Eugene currently imposes a 4.5 percent tax under the authority of the city’s Transient Room Tax Ordinance on all overnight stays in the city, including hotels and motels, campgrounds, retreat centers, RV parks, bed and breakfasts, and vacation rentals. The tax is collected by the lodging operator, who retains a collection fee of 5percent of the amount collected and remits the balance to 37 Revenue Team, Report to the City of Eugene Budget Committee, April 2014, http://eugene-or.gov/2582/Revenue-Team 38 Oregon Travel Impacts 1991-2014, April 2015, Dean Runyan Associates 39 http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/34122721-75/story.csp 40 Oregon’s State Lodging Tax, Oregon Department of Revenue, April 2015 41 Oregon’s State Lodging Tax, Oregon Department of Revenue, April 2015 42 Oregon Revised Statutes §320.350 22TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY the city. According to Eugene’s city code, all revenues must be placedin the Cultural Services Fund, which accounts for operation of the Hult Center, Community Events, Public Art and Cuthbert Amphitheater. Lane County also levies a transient room tax, as does the stateof Oregon, 43 making the current total TRTrate within Eugene 11.3 percent. 44 in fiscal The amount of taxes currently available for any given period, approximately $2.1 million year 2015, varies with the lodging occupancy rate. An increase of 1 percent in the tax rate from 4.5 to 5.5 percent could net about $467,000 in revenue in a typical year. The table belowillustrates the potential revenue amountsfrom a TRT increase. See Appendix F for implementation and ballot language requirements. 1%$466,667 $140,000 2%$933,333 $280,000 3%$1,400,000 $420,000 Source: City of Eugene Revenue Team Report *Based on revenue of $2.1 million from existing 4.5% TLT, net of collection fee retained by operators. Marijuana Tax Municipalities in Oregon are authorized to impose a tax on the sale of recreational marijuana. HB 3400passed in 2015, and provides that cities may adopt an ordinance, which must be referred to the voters, imposing a tax or fee of up to 3 percent on the sale of marijuana items by a retail licensee. The ordinance must be referred to the voters in a statewide general election, meaning an election in November of an even-numbered year. Although HB 3400 provides that cities may impose a tax on sales by retail licensees, it remains unclear whether a city can tax medical marijuana. In particular, a city should consult its attorney on whether the authority to impose a tax or fee on “the production, processing or sale of marijuana items,” vested solely in the Legislature 45 except as provided in HB 3400, includes the authority to tax medical marijuana. To date, no Oregon municipalities have imposed a tax on the sale of recreational marijuana. However, the Eugene city council has referred a 3 percent tax on recreational marijuana to the November 2016 ballot. The revenues have not been dedicated to any particular use; the council will discuss how to use the proceeds during a work session in September 2016. City staff estimated that the tax could raise between $200,000 and $600,000, but cautioned that these estimates are very speculative. The state of Oregon currently imposes a tax of 25 percent on sales of recreational marijuana. The tax was expected to generate $1 million in January; actual revenue was $3.48 million, more than three times what was expected. Information on how much each county or city generated is not yet available.The revenues from the state tax, minus operating costs, will be divided among a variety of accounts: 40 percent for the common school fund, 20 percent for mental health, 15 percent for 43 Revenue Team, Report to the City of Eugene Budget Committee, April 2014, http://eugene-or.gov/2582/Revenue-Team 44 Net of 5% collection fee retained by operators, City of Eugene 45 League of Oregon Cities, Local Government Regulation of Marijuana in Oregon, August 2015 TTPL::CFD23 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY state police, 10 percent for cities, 10 percent for counties, and 5 percent for the state Health 46 Authority. Several municipalities in Colorado impose local taxes on marijuana Aurora5%, up to 10% authorized sales. Since 2013, 52 local Boulder3.50% jurisdictions have passed taxes on Breckenridge5% 47 marijuana.The table to the right Denver3.5%, up to 15% authorized shows several Colorado Pueblo8%, up to 15% authorized (excise tax) municipalities’ taxes on recreational Source: Colorado Municipal League marijuana. Because the sale of recreational marijuana is so new in Oregon, any revenue estimates are fairly speculative. In January 2016, the state of Oregon collected $3.48 million in tax revenue from the state’s 25 percent tax on recreational marijuana. This equates to approximately $14 million in sales. Based on its population, Eugene’s sales can be estimated at $566,000, meaning the city could have generated nearly $17,000 from a 3 percent sales tax in the month of January. Thus annual revenue in the city from a potential 3 percent tax on recreational marijuana could be estimated at nearly $204,000. The table belowsummarizes these calculations, and does not include the cost of administering the tax. Oregon sales Jan 2016*$14,000,000 Oregon population**3,970,239 Marijuana sales per capita Jan 2016$4 Eugene population***160,775 Estimated sales per month$566,931 Estimated monthly revenue from 3% tax$17,008 Estimated annual revenue from 3% tax$204,095 *http://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/index.ssf/2016/03/first_month_of_taxed_recreatio.html **US Census QuickFacts ***2015 City of Eugene Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fort Collins, Colorado is similar in population to Eugene. While the city does not have a special tax on marijuana, collections from the city’s general sales tax of 3.85 percent on marijuana sales was estimated to be $200,000 in 2015. Thus total annual marijuana sales in the city can be estimated to total nearly $5.2 million, which is approximately $33 per capita. Based on this per capita estimate, Eugene’s sales can be estimated at $5.3 million, which would generate nearly $160,000 from a 3 percent tax on recreational marijuana in the city.The table on the following page summarizes these calculations. 46 http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/34174852-75/first-month-of-oregon-recreational-marijuana-taxes-nets-3.48-million.csp 47 Colorado Municipal League 24TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Fort Collins population*156,480 2015 sales tax collections from marijuana**$200,000 Fort Collins general sales tax3.85% Estimated 2015 marijuana sales$5,194,805 Estimated sales per capita$33 Eugene population***160,775 Estimated marijuana sales$5,337,390 Estimated revenue from 3% tax$160,122 *US Census QuickFacts **Fort Collins 2015-2016 Budget ***2015 City of Eugene Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Based on these two estimates, the City of Eugene might expect to generate roughly $160,000 to $204,000 per year from a 3 percent tax on recreational marijuana, not accounting for the costs of administration. Once location-specific data from the January 2016 collections in Oregon is available, amore accurate estimate of Eugene’s revenue generating capacity can be calculated. However, a longer history of revenue collections will provide a more accurate estimate than calculations based on one month of data for a new revenue source such as the marijuana tax. See Appendix G for implementation procedures and an example of ballot language. TTPL::CFD25 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Cities across the country have an impressive track record of passing funding measures for parks and recreation. Since 1996, voters in Oregonhave approved 20 of 33 state and local measures for a 61percent success rate. In the City of Eugene, voters have been highly supportive of local and statewide measures for parks, recreation, and conservation. In November 1998, Oregon voters approved the dedication of 15 percent of state lottery proceeds for parks, beaches, wildlife, and watershed protection. The measure passed with 67 percent support statewide and 75 percent support from Eugene. In November 2010, Oregon voted to continue this dedication, with 69 percent support statewide and 82 percent support from Eugene. The City of Eugene has also passed two bonds, once in 1998 and 48 again in 2006, as well as two property taxes for recreation services in 2000 and 2002.These results are summarized in the table below. Constitutional Oregon11/2/2010$1,740,000,000 $1,740,000,000 Pass69%82% amendment Eugene11/7/2006Bond$27,490,000 $20,200,000 Pass59%59% Eugene11/5/2002Property Tax$29,200,000 n/aPass54%54% Eugene11/7/2000Property Tax$7,000,000 n/aPass64%64% Eugene11/3/1998Bond$25,305,000 $9,070,000 Pass67%67% Constitutional Oregon11/3/1998$700,000,000 $700,000,000 Pass67%75% amendment Sources: The Trust for Public Land's LandVote Database, City of Eugene As of March 2016, the City of Eugene had 86,961 registered voters, including 42,138 Democrats 49 (48 percent), 27,180 Independents (31percent), and 17,643 Republicans (20 percent).The chart below summarizes voter turnout in the City of Eugene for each special, primary, and general election since 2010. In November 2011, there were no City of Eugene, Lane County, or Oregon 50 state-wide measures on the ballot, so Eugene voters did not receive ballots. In November 2013, only two Eugene districts voted on a school district question, so the percent voter turnout is based on a small portion of Eugene voters (301 voters). 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 48 The Trust for Public Land’s LandVote Database 49 http://app.l2political.com/reports/PDF/OR/ORCNTY_LANE-PCP.PDF 50 http://kval.com/news/local/oregon-election-results-november-5-2013-11-20-2015 26TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Upcoming Elections There are twoelections remaining in 2016: September 20 and November 8. One statewide measure has been referred to the November 8, 2016 ballot. There are several potential statewide measures. Currently no measures have been filed for Lane County. The City of Eugene has referred a 3 percent tax on recreational marijuana to the November 2016 ballot. It is too distant to know what might appear on 2017 ballots. However, there will likely be some local levies up for renewal. For instance, the Lane County Public Safety Levy will expire and may be on the ballot for renewal, 51 likely in November 2017 or May 2018.School District 4J has a local option levy that runs 52 through 2020 and will need to be renewed. The table below outlines the City of Eugene’s filing deadlines for 2016elections.The 2017 and 2018 election schedules are not yet available; however, the deadlines will be similar. 5th 7 business day business days 10 after Recorder after ballot title 61st day prior days prior sends measure rec'd from CAO to Attorneyby CRO** February 27, 2016 December 14, December 14, December 22, December 31, March 8, 2016 January 7, 2016(February 23 to 2015201520152015(2nd Tues) RG) May 7, 2016 (May May 17, 2016 (3rd February 8, 2016February 8, 2016February 17, 2016February 26, 2016March 17, 2016 3 to RG) Tues) September 4, September 20, June 22, 2016June 22, 2016June 30, 2016July 10, 2016July 16, 2016 20162016 (3rd Tues) July 25, 2016 (last July 25, 2016 (last October 29, 2016 meeting date meeting date September 8, August 2, 2016August 11, 2016(October 25 to November 8, 2016 before summer before summer 2016 RG) break)break) *Additional time is required for recruitment and selection of Voters’ Pamphlet Opponent Committee members. This is an approximate date and authorization to begin the processmay occur prior to Council action to place the measure on the ballot. **Appeals are filed with Lane County Circuit Court; therefore, timeline is contingent on court’s ability to expedite hearing. ***The City is charged to participate in elections other than the Primary and General in even numbered years; and the costs, which are prorated by voter count per district, would be determined by level of participation of other districts. Source: Beth Forrest, City Recorder, City of Eugene 51 City of Eugene 52 http://www.4j.lane.edu/communications/localoptionlevy2014/ TTPL::CFD27 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY In 1944, the citizens of Eugene adopted the council/manager form of government. In this form of government, the city council develops legislation and policies to direct the city, but hires a professional manager (the city manager) to oversee City of Eugene personnel and operations and to carry out the city council's direction. Jon Ruiz is currently serving as city manager. The mayor serves as the city's political head and chairperson of the council. He or she is elected by the city at large on a nonpartisan ballot for a four-year term. The mayor is the formal representative of the city. He or she presides over city council meetings but has no vote except in the case of a tie. The mayor can veto any decision, but a two-thirds vote of the council can override the veto. The city council, Eugene's legislative body, has eight members. The city council is responsible for passing laws, setting community goals, adopting policy and deciding which services the city will provide. Councilors are elected on a nonpartisan ballot for four-year terms. One councilor is elected from each of eight wards with one-half of the council elected every two years.An ordinance may be passed by majority vote of the council after it has been considered at two council meetings. Alternatively, an ordinance may be passed after only one meeting if the council votes unanimously to approve it. MayorKitty PiercyJan 2017Lucy Vinis wonMay 2016primary Councilmember, Ward 1George BrownJan 2017Seat up for election in 2016 Councilmember, Ward 2Betty TaylorJan 2017Seat up for election in 2016 Councilmember, Ward 3Alan ZelenkaJan 2019 Councilmember, Ward 4George PolingJan 2019 Councilmember, Ward 5Mike ClarkJan 2019 Councilmember, Ward 6Greg EvansJan 2019 Councilmember, Ward 7Claire SyrettJan 2017Seat up for election in 2016 Councilmember, Ward 8Chris PryorJan 2017Seat up for election in 2016 28TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY TTPL::CFD29 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Appendix A: Revenue Options Summary The City of Eugene could issue general obligation bonds to Voter Bonds raise substantial amounts of money, support capital purposes. For example, a general obligation approval enabling the cityto make important acquisitions bond for $30 million would cost the average household $31 per required.now while land is available. year. Costs would be spread out over a long time horizon, and therefore are borne by both current and future residents. Bond Issue Debt Service Tax Req'd Cost/Home/Year* $2,207,453 0.1613$31 Bond funds may not be used for operations and maintenance. *Average assessed value = $189,821. The debt servicefigure for the proposed bond issue above is based upon a general obligation bond issued for 20 years at 4% interest. These estimates do not take into account bond issuance costs, property tax collection rates or changes in assessed value over the life of the bonds.Thisrate is used only for illustration. City officials, financial advisors, bond counsel, and underwriters would establish the actual terms of any bond issue. The City of Eugene could levy a local option property tax for parksand/or recreation purposes. For example, a property tax Voter A local option levy wouldcreate significant of $0.20 per $1,000 of assessed value couldgenerate approval funding for parks and conservation that could be approximately $2.7 million annually, at a cost of about $38 per required.used for operations and maintenance purposes. year for the average homeowner. A local option levy may be imposed for five years (ten years if imposed for capital purposes only). Mill Rate Revenue/Year Cost/Home/Year* 0.1616 $ $33Local option levies are counted under the Measure 5 tax rate limits and are the first to be affected by compression loss if/when applicable. *Average assessed value = $189,821. The City of Eugene could implement a maintenance utility fee Ordinance A monthly utility fee would create significant for parks. A monthly fee of $3 would generate about $2.5 million or voter funding for parks that could be used for annually at a cost of $36 per housing unit.approval.operations and maintenance purposes. The fee would be spread out over both residential and non-residential properties, with potential for reduced fees for low-income/senior housing. Fee/Month Revenue/Year* Cost/Housing Unit $3 $36 Revenue estimate based on residential units only, further research needed to estimate potential revenue from non-residential properties. *Based on 69,951 housing units.Does not include a low income Eugene attempted to implement service fee via assistance program, any factor for non-payment, and the cost of ballot measure in 2013. The measure was administering and collecting the fee.defeated. The City of Eugene could implement a meals tax. For example, Ordinance a 1%tax could generate roughly per year, or voter Allows the cityto collect revenues from visitors. depending on restaurant sales.approval. This estimate is based on revenues collected byAshland, as Eugene attempted to implement a restaurant tax well as a 2014 report by the City of Eugene Revenue Team.via ballot measure in 1993. The measure was Does not include the cost of administering the tax.defeated. Revenues may be used foroperations and maintenance. 30TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY The City of Eugene could increase the local tax on lodging and Ordinance dedicate a portion of the revenue to parks and recreation or voter Allows the cityto collect revenues from visitors. purposes.approval. 70% of revenues must be used for tourism purposes, after netting out the 5% collection fee. Tax Increase Revenue/Year* 30% for Parks 1% $466,667 Revenues may be used for operations and maintenance. *Based on revenue of $2.1million from existing 4.5% TLT. The City of Eugene might expect to generate roughly Voter Several municipalities in Colorado impose local per year from a 3 percent tax on recreational approval taxes on marijuana sales. Since 2013, 52 local marijuana.required.jurisdictions have passed taxes on marijuana. This estimate is based on revenues collected in January 2016 by the state of Oregon, as well as revenues collected by Fort Revenues may be used for operations and Collins, CO in 2015.This does not take into account the costs of maintenance. administering the new tax. TTPL::CFD31 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Appendix B:General Obligation Bond Implementation, Ballot Language Requirements, and Examples General obligation bonds must be approved by a majority of the voters voting in a May or November general election, or at a special election with at least 50 percent voter turnout (i.e., 53 approved by a “double majority” of voters). Bond measures can be submitted to voters on the following dates: second Tuesday in March (double majority required); third Tuesday in May; third Tuesday in September (double majority required); or 54 first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The general election is held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each even- 55 numbered year. Ballot LanguageRequirementsand Examples The ballot title of any measure, other than a state measure, to be initiated or referred shall consist of: A caption of not more than 10 words which reasonably identifies the subject of the measure; A question of not more than 20 words which plainly phrases the chief purpose of the measure so that an affirmative response to the question corresponds to an affirmative vote onthe measure; and A concise and impartial statement of not more than 175 words summarizing the measure 56 and its major effect. If the election is not the May or November election, and thus the “double majority” requirement applies, the ballot must include the following statement as the first statement of the ballot title summary: “This measure may be passed only at an election with at least a 50 percent voter turnout.” 57 The words of this statement do not count towards the word limits described above. The ballot title of any measure requesting elector approval of bonds, the principal and interest on which will be payable from taxes imposed on property or property ownership that are not subject to the limitations of sections 11 and 11b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (including general obligation bonds), shall contain the following statement immediately after the ballot title question and appearing with it, in this manner: 53 League of Oregon Cities, Debt Issuance Manual, September 2007 54 Oregon Revised Statutes §221.230 55 League of Oregon Cities, Debt Issuance Manual, September 2007 56 Oregon Revised Statutes §250.035 57 Oregon Revised Statutes §250.036 32TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY “Question: (herein the question is stated) If the bonds are approved, they will be payable from taxes on property or property ownership that are not subject to the limits of sections 11 and 11b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution.” The words of this statement do not count towards the word limits described above. The ballot title statement for any measure requesting elector approval of bonds, the principal and interest on which is to be payable from taxes imposed on property or property ownership that are not subject to the limitations of sections 11 and 11b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (including general obligation bonds), shall contain a reasonably detailed, simple and understandable description of the use of proceeds. The front of the outer envelope in which the ballot title is delivered shall state, clearly and boldly 58 printed in red, “CONTAINS VOTE ON PROPOSED TAX INCREASE.” Referred to the People by the City Council 26-159 Bonds to fix playgrounds, trails; improve park facilities, safety, accessibility. Question: Shall Portland fix, improve park facilities by issuing bonds estimated to maintain current tax rate; require audits and public oversight? If the bonds are approved, they will be payable from taxes on property or property ownership that are not subject to the limits of sections 11 and 11b,Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. Yes No Bond to Acquire Open Spaces, Protect Clean Water, Improve Parklands Question: Shall city issue $17 million general obligation bonds to acquire, preserve and protect open spaces, water quality, habitat, and parks? If the Bonds are approved, they will be payable from taxes on property or property ownership that are not subject to the limits of Sections II and IIb, ArticleXI of the Oregon Constitution. Summary: If approved, this measurewould authorize the City of Tigard to sell up to $17 million in bonds for land acquisition, restoration, capital construction and improvements allocated as follows: • 80% or more to acquire land to preserve open space, parklands, and wildlife habitat, protect streams for improved local water quality to benefit fish and wildlife, • 20% or less to create and improve community parks, recreational areas and trails, and • Up to 10% of the total for downtown parkland. This investment is for the benefit of current and future generations. The Parks and Recreation Board would provide oversight; spending would be audited by the City’s yearly audit. Bonds would mature in 21 years or less from issuance and may be issued in one or more series. The estimated additional annual cost to property owners would be $0.29 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. For a home with the median assessed value of $207,000, the City estimates that the additional monthly cost would be about $4.99 per month, or $60 per year. 58 Oregon Revised Statutes §250.037 TTPL::CFD33 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Measure 4-144- CITY OF CANNON BEACH BOND AUTHORIZATION ACQUIRE ECOLA TRACT TO PROTECT WETLANDS, STREAMS, FORESTLANDS Question: Shall City acquire Ecola Tract to protect wetlands, streams, salmon habitat, forestlands; issue up to $4 million general obligation bonds? If the bonds are approved, they will be payable from taxes on property or property ownership that are not subject to the limits of sections 11 and 11b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. Summary: This measure would authorize the City of Cannon Beach to sell up to $4 million in bonds to acquire the 800-acre Ecola Tract from the Oregon Department of Forestry for the protection of wetlands, streams, forestlands, salmon, trout and wildlife habitat. Acquired lands would expand the existing City-owned Ecola Creek Forest Reserve. Additionally, proceeds would pay associated bond issuance costs. The City would establish a citizen oversight committee and require a yearly independent financial audit, as wellas create a management plan withinput from citizens for the acquired land. The management plan would focus on conservation, restoration and passive recreation. Bonds would mature in 21 years or less from issuance and may be issued in one or more series. The estimated additional annual cost to property owners if all $4 million in bonds are sold would be $0.36 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. For the owner of a home with the median assessed value of $200,516, the additional annual cost would be approximately $75 per year. 34TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Appendix C: PropertyTaxImplementation, Ballot Language Requirements, and Examples Local options levies can be imposed only with voter approval. Local options levy elections are subject to the same “double majority” requirements as general obligation bonds. If the election was held in May or November, the double majority requirement would not apply. The March and September elections are subject to the “double majority” requirement. Ballot Language Requirementsand Examples The ballot title of any measure, other than a state measure, to be initiated or referred shall consist of: A caption of not more than 10 words which reasonably identifies the subject of the measure; A question of not more than 20 words which plainly phrases the chief purpose of the measure so that an affirmative response to the question corresponds to an affirmative vote on the measure; and A concise and impartial statement of not more than 175 words summarizing the measure 59 and its major effect. If the election is not the May or November election, and thus the “double majority” requirement applies, the ballot must include the following statement as the first statement of the ballot title summary: “This measure may be passed only at an election with at least a 50 percent voter turnout.” 60 The words of this statement do not count towards the word limits described above. The ballot title for a measure authorizing the imposition of local option taxes shall contain the following statement and information: “This measure may cause property taxes to increase more than three percent.” As part of the question, the ballot title for a measure authorizing or renewing the authorization of the imposition of local option taxes shall state: The length in years of the period during which the proposed local option tax will be imposed. 61 The first fiscal year in which the proposed local option tax will be imposed. If the measure is authorizing the imposition of local option taxes, the front of the outer envelope in which the ballot title is delivered shall state, clearly and boldly printed in red, “CONTAINS VOTE 62 ON PROPOSED TAX INCREASE”. 59 Oregon Revised Statutes §250.035 60 Oregon Revised Statutes §250.036 61 Oregon Revised Statutes §280.070 62 Oregon Revised Statutes §250.038 TTPL::CFD35 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY For a levy imposed based on a fixed amount, the statement in the ballot title for the measure that explains the chief purpose of the measure and gives reasons for themeasure shall state the total amount of money to be raised by the proposed local option tax, in dollars and cents. If the statement in the ballot title for the measure submitted includes an estimated tax impact, it shall be based on the most current estimate of assessed value from the county assessor. The measure shall bear the statement: “The estimated tax cost for this measure is an ESTIMATE ONLY based on the best information available from the county assessor at the time of estimate and may reflect the impact of early payment discounts, compression and the collection rate.” This statement is to be added to and made a part of the 175-word statement, however, will not count towards the 175-word limitation. For a levy imposed based on a fixed millage rate, an estimate of the total amount of money to be raised for each year of the proposed local option tax shall be stated in dollars and cents. If this levy raises more money than estimated, the excess collections above that estimate shall be considered a budget resource for the levy fund in the next fiscal year of the subdivision. This statutedoes not apply to an election authorizing general obligation bonds or the tax levies to repay general obligation bonds. This statement is to be added to and made a part of the 175-word statement, 63 however, will not count towards the 175-word limitation. Measure No. 26-152 METRO Local option levy: improve naturalareas, water quality for fish Question: Shall Metro improve natural areas, water quality for fish: five-year operating levy, $.096 per $1,000 assessed value, beginning 2013? This measure may cause property taxes to increase more than three percent. Summary: Twice in two decades, Metro voters approved measures to acquire thousands of acres of natural areas throughout the tri-county region. Past measures could not include money for maintenance and restoration. This levy creates a dedicated fund to improve water quality for salmon and native fish, remove invasive weeds that threaten the health of these natural areas, restore wetlands and provide opportunities for people from around the region to experience nature close to home. Cost The estimated cost for the typical household is $20per year for five years. Result of a “yes” vote • Improve water quality in local rivers and streams for salmon and other native fish including the Clackamas, Sandy, Tualatin rivers; Fanno, Johnson creeks. • Restore wildlife habitat and remove weeds that choke plants wildlife need for food and shelter. • Restorewetlands and floodplains to control flooding, provide habitat for birds and amphibians. • Construct or replace capital projects in parks, such as restrooms, picnic shelters, playgrounds. • Provide nature education programs in natural areas to visitors andschool-aged children. The proposed rate (at $.096/$1,000) will raise approximately $10.2 million in 2013-14, $10.4 million in 2014- 15, $10.6 million in 2015-16, $ 10.9 million in 2016-17 and $11.2 million in 2017-18. The estimated tax cost for this measure is an ESTIMATE ONLY based on the best information available from the county assessors at the time of estimate. 63 Oregon Revised Statutes §280.075 36TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY 26-34 FIVE-YEAR LEVY TO RESTORE PARK SERVICES, REPAIRS, RECREATION PROGRAMS QUESTION: Shall Portland repair, restore maintenance to parks, playgrounds, pools; levy $.39 per $1,000 assessed valuation for five years beginning 2003? (This measure may cause property taxes to increase by more than three percent.) TTPL::CFD37 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Appendix D: Service FeeImplementation,Ballot Language Requirements, and Example Under Oregon’s constitutional home rule powers the Eugene city charter grants the city council broad authority over matters within the city’s boundaries. The city council may implement a city service fee by ordinance. Alternatively, the fee may be placed on a ballot by the council, by citizen 64 initiative, or by referendum petition. Ballot LanguageRequirements and Example The ballot title of any measure, other than a state measure, to be initiated or referred shall consist of: A caption of not more than 10 words which reasonably identifies the subject of the measure; A question of not more than 20 words which plainly phrases the chief purpose of the measure so that an affirmative response to the question corresponds to an affirmative vote on the measure; and A concise and impartial statement of not more than 175 words summarizing the measure 65 and its major effect. If the election is not the May or November election, and thus the “double majority” requirement applies, the ballot must include the following statement as the first statement of the ballot title summary: “This measure may be passed only at an election with at least a 50 percent voter turnout.” 66 The words of this statement do not count towards the word limits described above. There are no specific requirements for maintenance utility or service fee ballot measures. Monthly fee for City fire, police, homelessness and other services. Question: Shall City maintain fire, policy, homelessness and quality of life services with monthly feecapped at $10 for residences? If approved, this measure would authorize a monthly fee to maintain:. -public safety services, such as a fire company (fire engine and nine firefighters/paramedics), police detectives, mobile mental health crisis team (CAHOOTS) and teen court -homeless and basic human services such as emergency shelter for homeless youth -quality of life services such as downtown and branch libraries, Sheldon swimming pool, recreation programs and services, neighborhood park restrooms and parks maintenance The measure would raise funds by authorizing City Council to impose a monthly fee of no more than $10/month for residences and $30/month for businesses. The actual fee would be set by Council. The measure would require Council to establish a program for assistance to low income individuals who would be subject to the fee. An oversight committee would annually determine whether revenues generated by the fee were spent for authorized purposes. Council would be required to review the fee after five years to decide if it should be revised or terminated. 64 Revenue Team, Report to the City of Eugene Budget Committee, April 2014, http://eugene-or.gov/2582/Revenue-Team 65 Oregon Revised Statutes §250.035 66 Oregon Revised Statutes §250.036 38TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Appendix E:RestaurantTax Implementation, Ballot Language Requirements, and Example Under Oregon’s constitutional home rule powers the Eugene city charter grants the city council broad authority over matters within the city’s boundaries. The city council may implement a restaurant tax by ordinance. Alternatively, the tax may be placed on a ballot by the council or by 67 referendum petition. Ballot Language Requirements and Example The ballot title of any measure, other than a state measure, to be initiated or referred shall consist of: A caption of not more than 10 words which reasonably identifies the subject of the measure; A question of not more than 20 words which plainly phrases the chief purpose of the measure so that an affirmative response to the question corresponds to an affirmative vote on the measure; and A concise and impartial statement of not more than 175 words summarizing the measure 68 and its major effect. If the election is not the May or November election, and thus the “double majority” requirement applies, the ballot must include the following statement as the first statement of the ballot title summary: “This measure may be passed only at an election with at least a 50 percent voter turnout.” 69 The words of this statement do not count towards the word limits described above. There are no specific requirements for sales tax ballot measures. Extend the 5% tax on food and beverage to 2030. Question: Shall 5% tax on prepared food and beverages extend to 2030 for parks and wastewater treatment improvements including debt repayment? This measure extends the five percent tax on prepared foodand beverages sold by restaurants, caterers, grocery store delis, coffee shops and other establishments. Alcoholic beverages are excluded. Tax revenues are dedicated for acquisition of park land and for capital improvements of parks and thewastewater treatment plant including debt repayment. Funds may only be used for park and wastewater capital improvements projects identified in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Plan. The City Council can reduce or eliminate the tax at anytime. Restaurants retain 5% of the tax collected. The City may use up to 2% for administrative expenses. The tax is not collected on food or beverages sold on school grounds or college campuses (except food sold by an independent contractor or non-educational catered events),on hospital grounds, in vending machines, at senior centers, or by non- profits or service clubs at street booths or concessions. Food provided by bed and breakfast inns is excluded. For single events, such as weddings, costing more than $5,000 the tax is capped at $250. 67 Revenue Team, Report to the City of Eugene Budget Committee, April 2014, http://eugene-or.gov/2582/Revenue-Team 68 Oregon Revised Statutes §250.035 69 Oregon Revised Statutes §250.036 TTPL::CFD39 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Appendix F: Transient Room Tax Implementation and Ballot Language Requirements While all revenue from Eugene’s current TRT must continue to go to the Cultural Services Fund, state law permits an increase in thetax rate to generate additional revenue. An increase in the TRT and dedication of increased revenues could be accomplished by ordinance; a public vote would not be required, but the ordinance would be referable. City code would also need to be amended if part of the increased revenue were to be directed to city operations not directly related to tourism. This can be accomplished by ordinance.The TRTcould also be increased by citizen initiative, referral 70 to the ballot by Council, or by a successful citizen referendum petition to the Council. Ballot Language Requirements The ballot title of any measure, other than a state measure, to be initiated or referred shall consist of: A caption of not more than 10 words which reasonably identifies the subject of the measure; A question of not more than 20 words which plainly phrases the chief purpose of the measure so that an affirmative response to the question corresponds to an affirmative vote on the measure; and A concise and impartial statement of not more than 175 words summarizing the measure 71 and its major effect. If the election is not the May or November election, and thus the “double majority” requirement applies, the ballot must include the following statement as the first statement of the ballot title summary: “This measure may be passed only at an election with at least a 50 percent voter turnout.” 72 The words of this statement do not count towards the word limits described above. There are no specific requirements for TLT ballot measures. 70 Revenue Team, Report to the City of Eugene Budget Committee, April 2014, http://eugene-or.gov/2582/Revenue-Team 71 Oregon Revised Statutes §250.035 72 Oregon Revised Statutes §250.036 40TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY Appendix G: Marijuana Tax Implementation and Ballot Language Example Cities in Oregon may adopt an ordinance, which must be referred to the voters, imposing a tax or fee of up to 3 percent on the sale of marijuana items by a retail licensee. The ordinance must be referred to the voters in a statewide general election, meaning an election in November of an even- 73 numbered year. Ballot Language 74 Below is an example of ballot language provided by the League of Oregon Cities. BALLOT TITLE A caption which reasonably identifies the subject of the measure 10 word limit under ORS 250.035(1)(a) “Imposes city tax on marijuana retailer’s sale of marijuana items” QUESTION A question which plainly phrases the chief purpose of the measure so that an affirmative response to the question corresponds to an affirmative vote on the measure 20 word limit under ORS 250.035(1)(b) “Shall City of {name} impose a {up to three percent} tax on the sale in the City of {city} of marijuana items by a marijuana retailer?” SUMMARY A concise and impartial statement summarizing the measure and its major effect 175 word limit under ORS 250.035(1)(c) “Under state law, a city council may adopt an ordinance to be referred to the voters of the city imposing up to a three percent tax or fee on the sale of marijuana items in the city by a licensed marijuana retailer. Approval of this measure would impose a {up to three} percent tax on the sale of marijuana items in the city by a licensed marijuana retailer. The tax would be collected at the point of sale and remitted by the marijuana retailer. {Under state law, a city that adopts an ordinance that prohibits the establishment in the area subject to the jurisdiction of the city of a medical marijuana processor, medical marijuana dispensary, or recreational marijuana producer, processor, wholesaler, or retailer may not impose a tax or fee on the production, processing or sale of marijuana or any product into which marijuana has been incorporated. This measure would become operative only if the measure 73 Leagueof Oregon Cities, Local Government Regulation of Marijuana in Oregon, August 2015 74 League of Oregon Cities, Local Government Regulation of Marijuana in Oregon, August 2015 TTPL::CFD41 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY proposing to prohibit the establishment of any of those marijuana entities does not pass by a 75 majority of votes.}” 75 Cities that desire to provide voters with the most options may wish to put both a measure banning certain activities and a tax measure before the voters at the same time. Cities that elect to do so should include this wording explaining the effect of the vote. 42TTPL::CFD HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT CE,O|CFFS|M2016 ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY With any questions or for more information please contact: Associate National Conservation Services Director – West The Trust for Public Land (206) 274-2920 dee.frankfourth@tpl.org or Conservation Finance Research Associate The Trust for Public Land (206) 274-2907 jessica.welch@tpl.org www.tpl.org TTPL::CFD43 HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND F:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161130\\S161130B.doc RELATEDCITYPOLICIES COUNCILOPTIONS i.e CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTEDMOTION ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION F:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161130\\S161130B.doc Agate St BELTLINE ROYAL AVE COUNCIL ORDINANCENO. 20555 COUNCIL BILL 5147 AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE USE OF FIREWORKS WITHOUT A PERMIT WITHIN THE CITY LIMITSIN THE AREAS TH SOUTH OF 18AVENUE OR EAST OF AGATE STREET IN 2015; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. ADOPTED:July 1, 2015 SIGNED:July 1, 2015 PASSED:8:0 REJECTED: OPPOSED: ABSENT: EFFECTIVE: July 1, 2015