In response to the testimony we heard on Wednesday, January 9 regarding the "Safe, Sound and Green" transportation funding proposal, I propose two substantive changes and a procedural option for council and the community to consider.
Add a "Claw Back" Provision
Paul Romain, lobbyist for the Oregon Petroleum Association and Richard Kosesan, lobbyist for the Oregon Neighborhood Store Association, voiced opposition to the proposal. They said that the City of Portland's $422 million transportation safety and maintenance backlog will be solved with a statewide gas tax increase.
I wish history supported that view. Unfortunately, we've heard this for 15 years. It hasn't happened.
You will recall that the city historically has relied on the state gas tax to fund street maintenance and safety. The legislature last addressed the state gas tax 15 years ago, in 1993. Because of the state's failure to act, the city's maintenance and safety backlog is $422 million, and growing by $9 million each year.
Even if the legislature does act in 2009 for the first time in 16 years, the state's funding formula is such that it would take a 27.5 cent per gallon gas tax increase to address our backlog.
Nobody believes a 27.5 cent gas tax is likely.
Since it's unlikely, it raises a related question: will the state change its funding formula to see that Portland receives a larger share than it currently receives? The forumula is complicated and the short answer is no.
History cautions against both concepts, and I urge council to stay the course. It's the safest choice for the city.
That said, we can accommodate the lobbyists on the remote chance they are correct. To do that, I am proposing a "claw back" provision to the proposal. If the State provides the City of Portland transportation resources sufficient to meet the maintenance and safety needs outlined in the ordinance's exhibits, we will reduce the Street Maintenance and Safety rates proportionately. We will "claw back" our fee.
Eliminate automatic Consumer Price Index fee increases
Our first reading included a provision to automatically add 3.5% each year to the Street Safety and Maintenance Fee to cover inflation. The intention was to avoid the problem of inflation eating away our ability to manage streets and bridges, as illustrated by the state's gas tax.
Notwithstanding our experience with the state, some have stated the increase should not be automatic. I believe that's a fair argument.
Instead, the 3.5% now will be the maximum increase amount and the Portland Office of Transportation will need to secure annual approval from the Independent Oversight Committee and the Portland City Council to adjust for inflation. Inflation adjustments also must include a consideration of the status of the local economic conditions.
An Option to Reduce the Possibility of a "Single Subject" Conflict
Law requires that legislation contain only one subject. The Safe, Sound and Green Street proposal is about one overall topic: raising funds for street maintenance and safety. However, it contains three different fee rates imposed in one ordinance. The three rates are for residential, commercial, and high volume pass-by commercial interests.
The City Attorney has advised that while including all three rates in one ordinance is likely to withstand a legal challenge based on the single-subject requirement, it would be safer if each fee rate was established in its own ordinance.
Why worry about this? The opponents have made clear they will use all available options to prevent the Safe, Sound and Green proposal from being implemented.
Supporters are of mixed minds on how to respond to this issue. Some feel strongly that we must eliminate any vulnerability to legal challenge. The concern is that all of the community's efforts should not be lost to a legal technicality.
On a related side note, splitting the ordinance into three will not affect the chances of this issue being referred to the voters for repeal. With paid gatherers, we have been told by those involved with gathering the signatures to refer this issue last time it was considered by the Portland City Council in 2001 that it is no more difficult for opponents to collect referral signatures for three ordinances versus one ordinance.
Other supporters are concerned that the possibility of three separate ordinances on the ballot will allow opponents to "cherry pick" for defeat the ordinance that affects them, leaving some payer groups paying and others exempt - not an equitable result.
This is a complicated procedural question. I welcome your thoughts and having a discussion about the issue at City Council.
On the regular City Council Agenda for Wednesday, January 16, I have filed a set of three new ordinances (Agenda items 98, 99, 100) that split the original ordinance and include the substantive changes regarding the "claw back" and CPI issues summarized above.
I have also left on the Wednesday, January 16 agenda the ordinance (Agenda item 101) heard and amended on January 9. We can proceed by amending the original ordinance to include the substantive changes regarding the "clawback" and CPI issues.
Having all these ordinances on the same City Council agenda will allow the Portland City Council and the community to discuss and decide procedural options.
Second Reading/Vote Moved to January 23
Because of the proposed substantive changes and the need to discuss the procedural options, next week's council hearing on this issue will be a second "first reading," with the second reading and vote January 23, 2008.
Relevant Docuememts
- Amend City Code to provide funding based on residential use of the street network to address Portland's street maintenance and transportation safety needs [1]
- Amend City Code to provide funding based on non-residential non-high pass-by use of the street network to address Portland's street maintenance and transportation safety needs [2]
- Amend City Code to provide funding based on non residential high pass-by use of the street network to address Portland's street maintenance and transportation safety needs [3]