He was eyeing that puppy from the get-go.

"$24.2 million to boost the miles of bike boulevards in town"
hey Sam,how about you spend 24.2 million on something our city needs, like a solution to the homeless problem. stop pandering to the bike crowd for once and nut up and do what is right. people dont NEED to ride a bike, they NEED a frihkin home. show some balls man!
or should I say "thanks" for all the people in Stumptown that cant even afford a frihkin bike?

Adams' plan is about much more than bike paths. Did you know that the city of Portland's dilapidated transportation system is KILLING PEOPLE to the tune of more than $400m a year?

This levy will enable the city to make much-needed changes to roads that will benefit car passengers, pedestrians, and yes, bicyclists alike.

Also, bicyclists will have to pay to use the roads, for a change. So I don't see how this is "pandering to bicyclists."

It's true, Sam has a friendly image. And I often wonder whether we're all going to get buyers' remorse when he's elected mayor and all of a sudden, the condos rise at three times their current rate, and some of Potter's more progressive public safety initiatives are rolled back. But this initiative is a smart one.

I wondered what his game was, coming to the office this afternoon. But I think it might be because this is a plan that's not easily understood, and spending an hour with two journalists to take them through the minutia means misconceptions are less likely to arise.

Note to other city commissioners: Come round our office more and talk about your policies. Also, slip us money. We'll be nice to you.

lolb:

substitute "cars" for "bikes" in your post. it might make it clear how little sense your post makes.

lolb:

substitute "cars" for "bikes" in your post. it might make it clear how little sense your post makes.

Over 600 miles of deferred maintenance on city streets and bike routes are more important. In other words the fee attached to the water bill will go to biker lanes and not streets at all.

Vote No for Scam Adams

I hope you guys check his pockets before he left. You know how expensive office supplies can be.

There is a purpose to government, despite what snarky libertarians post, and Sam's got a plan. Market this town to new, young, mobile, affluent, creatives; build a bike path and they will roll in. It's very clever - and plays to our level geography, and the rumpled scruffy show-up-to-work-out-of-breath types.

Sure there are bigger problems, which have different solutions. But it's key to create a easy segue from the current high water bills which in part pay for the Big Dig to a future capital improvement.

BTW, when do we all get a walk through of the Big Dig? I would pay cash to hike from one end to the other.

"Note to other city commissioners: Come round our office more and talk about your policies."

If you will recall, Matt, I did make a sojourn to your office during the first snowfall last winter. I was the guy pelting you with snowballs as you ran screaming in a high pitched voice "Please Stop....Please Stop..."

Name the date and I would be happy to stop by again....hopefully during another snow event.

Over 600 miles of deferred maintenance on city streets and bike routes are more important.

In fact that deferred maintenance is what most of these funds will be spent on. The bike boulevards are a small fraction of what will be spent on re-paving and re-building arterial streets.

The bike treatments come under the safety portion of the program and are intended to create opportunities for cyclists to use streets where they will be in less conflict with cars.

F... so you would agree that people being housed is more important than there being bike lanes?

lolb: I don't think Adams is against housing people. Although city commissioner Erik Sten is prioritizing doing that.

I'm all for beating the drum on homeless issues, and I see where you're coming from, it seems weird to spend money on anything else when there are people lining up for services down at TPI. But there's more to Portland than just one issue. And when that person is housed, or even not housed, they're going to want a safe transportation network--almost as much as a warm place to sleep.

Randy: I'm leaving the country on Thursday. Let's hope it doesn't snow until I'm back.

llob, that's a false choice.

[BTW - technically we're not talking about bike lanes (stripes on pavement) we're talking about boulevards which are low traffic streets with treaments - usually crossing treatments (not lanes).]

Helping shift people from cars to bikes helps head off or mitigate global warming. Is housing more important than global warming? (another false choice).

But I will say this, if you can get the Portland Business Alliance to sign up for $80/month on the average business water bill for housing, I'll be right there with you.

ok question, you said "Also, bicyclists will have to pay to use the roads, for a change. "

how is that the case? i didn't see a bicycle road use fee? if you meant "pay for road maintanence through new fees", well, don't a portion of our property taxes already go towards road maintenance? what about our income tax, some of that must be spent on roads. also, a lot of cyclists have cars too, so they would also pay the gas tax... please let me know how i am misunderstanding you, thanks.

And it's my understanding the PBA HAS signed up for this initiative. Which seems remarkably far-sighted, for what can tend to be such an irate and reactionary organization. Even the Small Business Advisory Council is in favor--perhaps the groups see that it's good for business to have a sound transportation network. Or they want some good press after the sit/lie, graffiti ordinance, comcastic debacles of recent months. Probably a bit of both.

Amy, help!

how is that the case? i didn't see a bicycle road use fee? if you meant "pay for road maintanence through new fees", well, don't a portion of our property taxes already go towards road maintenance? what about our income tax, some of that must be spent on roads. also, a lot of cyclists have cars too, so they would also pay the gas tax... please let me know how i am misunderstanding you, thanks.

Residents will pay this as a fee on your water bill ($4.54/mo with discounts available for 'green' behavior and low income situations). Since even bicyclists have water meters we pay too (so do exclusive transit users and pedestrians).

Local street maintenance is pretty much exclusively funded from the City and County portion of the state gas tax (local jurisdictions get a cut of this tax revenue). Property taxes typically only get involved when a street is completely re-developed through Urban Renewal. State income taxes don't get anywhere near local streets.

The reason Sam is seeking this new funding source is that the Legislature has not increased the state gas tax since 1993. Meanwhile the buying power of those tax dollars has declined 30% due to inflation.

Mayor Bud Clark's administration identified a street maintenance backlog back in 1988. The council at that time unanimously approved an ordinance to allocate 28% of the city's utility franchise revenue to that problem. At that time, the utility franchise revenue was about 25 million per year.

In her second year in office, Katz killed the allocation and allowed the money to flow into the general fund for other purposes. Had the 28% been adhered to not only would we not have the maintenance backlog that we have now, but the amount of money available to PDOT would now be 18 million per year because the utility franchise revenue is now 65 million annually.

The city's all funds budget is 3 billion per year. Two thirds of that money goes to inter-agency activity... the motor pool billing the PD, the IT department billing the auditors office, etc. That's where the fat can be found.

I'm not all that cranked about paying a small street maintenance fee... we pay one at our business property in Tigard. My complaint is that the city has not shown prudence with regard to budgeting priorities. It irritates me that this problem was identified nearly twenty years ago, a funding mechanism put in place to deal with it, and then it was subsequently killed by Vera Katz, with Sam Adams her chief of staff. Where did the money go? Who knows.

Now we are being asked to pay more and take for granted that the money will be well spent. For me, it's an issue of confidence.

Dave, I'll nominate you for the oversight committee that will be established as part of this process to make sure the money is spent where promised :-)

Chris,
I'd be happy to serve. I'd be happier if I could go through that three billion dollar budget line item by line item. If you're elected I hope you'll do the same.

Dave, you can be sure I'll be as attentive to the City's budget has I have been to the multi-million dollar budgets I've managed in my career at Tektronix and Xerox.

I'm all for capital improvement but why the hell does this state always do it through highly regressive user and fee taxes. Why, again, can't we just increase income and wealth tax on the highest bracket? Or I'm sure some smart accountants out there could find a way to raise government revenue while reducing housing costs.

Chris,
I thought you were a copier repairman :)

Seems like Adams is everywhere promising everything these days. While this is not a bad proposal, how does Adams think he'll get the other commissioners on board. Also, it seems that the city has many other priorities right now, like housing and jobs (condos aren't sustainable or affordable and in terms of the 'young creative class' there can only be so many graphic design jobs.)

Chris (@18), you said, "The reason Sam is seeking this new funding source is that the Legislature has not increased the state gas tax since 1993." But that's not completely true.

A large part of this new funding source is supposed to come from ... an increase in the state gas tax! Which is something completely out of the city's hands, of course (and not a little bit doubtful).

Adams had considered a city gas tax (which, frankly, seems like a worse idea than the state one), but opposition to it was too high, so he punted to the state. The question is why opposition is going to be any less statewide. And if the state doesn't raise the gas tax, where does that leave Adams' proposal? Underfunded, is my guess.

And as someone who walks/buses nearly everywhere, I'm curious (if dubious) about these "green" incentives I'll be getting. How exactly are they going to certify that I'm "green"?

I think that Matt and Chris make good points. These fixes will benefit everyone who commutes or travels around Portland.

That Sam Adams is willing to tackle a tough problem speaks to his character and commitment. This is a long-needed fix and, with the right discussions across the board, will benefit Portland's long-term safety and livability.

"Seems like Adams is everywhere promising everything these days. While this is not a bad proposal, how does Adams think he'll get the other commissioners on board."

I think their support is a given. D'you think he'd be shopping this around to the papers without a firm nod in the right direction?

The only way this proposal COULD get challenged is if someone can gather 18,000 signatures in 30 days, after it goes before council in January. Then it would go to the ballot.

Rumor is (because Adams said so when we asked him) that 7-11, and the Oregon Petroleum Dealers Association, are mulling over whether to attempt to fight it. Plaid Pantry, it's understood, has decided to suck it up.

Adams had considered a city gas tax (which, frankly, seems like a worse idea than the state one), but opposition to it was too high, so he punted to the state. The question is why opposition is going to be any less statewide. And if the state doesn't raise the gas tax, where does that leave Adams' proposal? Underfunded, is my guess.

Part of the opposition to the local gas tax ($0.03/gallon) was folks in the region and the state who understand we need to raise the state tax. The Governor and legislative leaders have committed to try for a $0.12 cent tax increase phased in over 6 years (interestingly, Portland's revenue from that increase is about the same as what the 3 cent local tax would have produced). For example, the petroleum dealers were going to oppose the local tax but have indicated they will not oppose a state-wide tax.

And Sam has indicated that if the state-wide tax fails, he'll be back with the local gas tax idea.

Like Chris Smith, I was a member of the "stakeholder committee" that provided some review and guidance to the tax and project plan that is now being discussed.

I definitely believe that we need to address our transportation needs and we need to pay for it, there is no getting around that. If I didn't believe that I wouldn't have spent countless hours reviewing all the info, going to meetings and the like.

I wasn't able to attend the Stakeholder Committee meeting on December 13. It should be noted that the plan that resides in a 3-ring binder on Ms. Ruiz' desk is not what was presented to the public in the town halls, open houses and the like that occurred in the past few months.

Further, it is not the plan that was reviewed by the "stakeholder committee" during many months of meetings. The plan was sent out shortly before December 13 and that meeting was designated as our final meeting.

I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself. But, as you can imagine, the dramatic change in package raises some concerns. There are plenty of small ones but here are the big ones:

1) Unequal treatment of businesses in Street Maintenance Fee (SMF)tax rates: The message on the taxes has been that "businesses will pay their fair share" but a few months into the process the Commissioner introduced a tiered pricing structure for the business SMF tax. That tiered pricing provides a significant discount to businesses that produce a lot of vehicle trips.

Under this discount scheme, businesses that demand more from the transportation system will paying much less for the traffic they generate on a average fee per trip basis. Personally, I believe that "if a trip is a trip is a trip" then every trip should be priced the same.

For businesses that rely on a high volume of customers - your local coffee shop or taqueria - the impact of bearing the burden for big retailers will be significant.

Can't those businesses can just pass this cost on to their customers? Sure. But this "solution" ignores the fact that local businesses only "pass this on" to a local pool even though have competitors who can pass their tax burden onto a regional, national, or even international customer base. Just consider Starbucks versus Extracto.

Extending this inequity in what businesses are paying out to 15-years seems like a real barrier to small business development to me. Having all the business actually pay their fair share doesn't solve this problem entirely but at least it's fair.

2) Unequal Allocation of City Funds Within the City: My view of the funding and allocation of the funding has always been on how and where the city-raised funds would be used.

Under the initial plan, NE Portland was slated to receive the lowest level of funding from the city - only 5 percent of the funding. After a lot of pressure from NE neighborhood associations and residents this was raised to 8 percent.

8 percent of the city-raised funds is equal to less than NE Portland's share of city population and it's less than NE Portland's share of total area in the city. Not surprisingly, it still represents the lowest share of city funding for any city district.

I do not know how NE Portland fares under the new plan. The difference in assumed funding between the plan shared with the public in October ($485 million) and the amount included in the plan sitting on Amy's deck ($822 million) is dramatic. Hopefully it means that NE Portland will finally get a fair share of the funding pie from ALL funding sources.

Speaking of funding sources, here is my final point:

3) What Council Decides Versus All Those Other Politicians and Voters: The original thrust of this initiative was to address our city transportation problems with city-raised funds. The packages reviewed by the public at town halls and initially reflected ALL funding coming from local taxes.

Only a little over 1/2 the funding for the $822 million spending package sitting on Amy's desk will come from local taxes.

On the face of it, that sounds great! We get all this money to spend and only have to raise part of it.

Absolutely IF the commitment on the part of the Governor's office and legislative representatives to help address our transportation needs through increases in the state gas tax happens. And IF Chairman Wheeler and the County increase vehicle licensing fees.

Call me pragmatic or call me a pessimist, but I have to say that the track record for follow-through on these types of commitments is undistinguished.

What the Council may be considering versus what it has control over are two different things. The Council only has purview over local taxes and where and how to spend those. What I want to see is a city-funded transportation plan that addresses our needs while treating tax payers fairly.

I believe that by touting hoped-for decisions on the part of other politicians this new plan inadvertently masks some problems with equal treatment of city residents and taxpayers. Addressing these issues are very much within the Council's authority and I hope they take the time to consider them.

On a final note, I don't spend enough time on line to be on the look out to any rebuttals or questions about this comment. At the risk of being spammed, I would appreciate any concerns also being addressed to me directly tonyfuentespdx (at) gmail.com.

All the best,

Tony Fuentes

Tony is correct that the proposal approved by the stakeholder committee is more comprehensive than proposal that was reviewed at the open houses and the town halls. The proposal recommended by the stakeholders last week includes some salient improvements that came from the comments we received from both the community and the stakeholders. Importantly, the project list in the final proposal includes the original projects and even more robust.

One key change is the proposal is for fifteen years rather than ten. We heard over and over again that the community would financially support the package, but the wanted to feel like they fixed the problem. In ten years we would be able to significantly reduce the backlog of streets in poor and very poor condition by 73 miles. The program was extended to 15 years to get all of the streets in poor and very poor condition up to good condition, thus we can continue to maintain them.

Additionally, the stakeholders were interested in investing in congestion relieving programs like smartrips. Investments that reduce single occupancy vehicles and support transit were key to both the business and neighborhood communities.

Advocacy from the neighborhoods was essential in determining where the money is spent. However, it is relevant that not every neighborhood as the same level of need. Sam was very concerned that the most dangerous intersections need to be addressed first. These are the streets that kill and injure people every year. Most of these intersections are in East Portland. The stakeholders and the community supported spending the money where is needed, not where it is raised. The projects supported by the community from the townhalls remain intact and additional money is available in the last five years of the program to address projects that are of top concern for the community.

The funding partnership between the city, state and county is able to support the efforts of our partners. Sam is committed to supporting the county’s efforts to fund repairs to the Sellwood and other Willamette River Bridges. Sam received commitments from elected officials, the business community, trucking community and auto advocates that a statewide gas tax increase in a top priority for the next legislative session. The value of a statewide increase can not be understated. It will help communities throughout the state that also face huge infrastructure deficiencies. This is the best laid plan that our stakeholders and partners could develop to address the problems on a local and statewide level. If there is no action at the Salem, Sam will work to fund this effort at a local level.

The street maintenance fee is equitable as all users pay something, those that use more pay more, discounts are given that support small businesses. 83 % of all users generate less than 10,000 trips and the average fee for those users is $33 a month.

The proposal received scrutiny at every level and support from business leaders, community activists and muti-modal experts.

If you want more information on the proposal or to see the mountian of information we left with Amy please see www.safeandsoundstreets.com