2011-3120-Minutes for Meeting November 09,2011 Recorded 12/12/2011DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
1111111111111111111111111111111
2011-3120
RECORDS Cd 2011.3120
CLERK d U
12/12/201108:31:31 AM
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
z
0
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF ROAD STUDY GROUP
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2011
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone; Interim County
Administrator Erik Kropp; and members of the committee: Todd Taylor, George
Kolb, Roger Olson, Peter Russell, Chris Doty, Clay Higuchi, Andy High, Steve
Runner, Conrad Ruel, Chris Doty, Jack Holt, Mike Williams, Gordon Dukes and
Hardy Hanson. Also present was media representative Hillary Borrud of The
Bulletin.
Chair Todd Taylor opened the meeting at 4:05 p.m.
Todd Taylor said he is trying to work on consolidating information. He wants to
learn from the group whether they should add or subtract from the document and
prepare for a recommendation to the County. It is a living document and subject to
change at this time.
He feels there are five areas important for the County to use as a tool to tie back to
funding deficiencies. There are operational ideas for sustainable funding to fill in
the gap on the revenue side. George Kolb said that the actual gas tax amount went
down for three months, and then went up again in October. He deals with this
enough to know it can vary a lot.
Mr. Taylor said there is the PCI to consider, and recommendations on that. They
could switch to PMS from capital asset services. (He provided a handout on this)
The cost is $30,000 to start, with an annual licensing fee.
The important piece is to identify how the roads are positioned now. There needs
to be a formula and index that can be used no matter who is doing the work.
Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Page 1 of 8 Pages
Jack Holt asked what they are currently doing. Mr. Kolb replied that there is one
person who takes about three months to do the entire project. This costs about
$11,000. They have their own in-house program to do this and it is not as
complete.
Mr. Taylor said the new system would also help with another recommendation,
working together as entities using a common denominator. Crook County uses the
PMS system. Mr. Holt asked what the State does. Mr. Kolb replied that they
looked at the State's system, but it does not have the ability to forecast. He added
they could stagger the local roads and do arterials every year, but the State works
at a different level.
Mr. Taylor stated that they could go through the process and have all entities
determine collectively what an acceptable index is. They all may decide on a
lower level.
Regarding item #2, there need to be options if the PCI ratings are known; what is
needed and when. Mr. Kolb said that he and Roger Olson reviewed annual costs
per mile on each option. They also looked at the possible use of concrete, but that
is best for road widening.
It was pointed out that they need to annualize. They do not need to chip seal every
year; however, they may need to re-gravel after winter on gravel roads. Some
treatments last longer than others. Dust abatement needs to be included for gravel
roads. And, the figure does not include the cost of tearing out the existing asphalt.
They need to prioritize services and figure out what the Road Department wants to
do to work towards a lower budget.
Mr. Taylor said they are not filling positions at this point, but this can only go to a
certain level. Mr. Olson added that there are not that many employees approaching
retirement at this point.
A 36-hour work week was discussed. Mr. Kolb said that sometimes it is better to
lay off than it is to go a reduced workweek. Community Development went
through this for three years. Morale went down significantly, but the work was
done and the employees kept their benefits. If there is no work in the private
sector, they do not need workers. The County's work is always there, and it is an
asset that needs to be maintained.
Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Page 2 of 8 Pages
Mr. Taylor brought up privatization. This asks the question, what areas could be
contracted out at least short-term. Some parking lot projects were done that way,
and some snow removal. This can include sanding, sign projects, and hazard
removal.
Mr. Kolb stated that there are 66 signs needed for a designated bikeway. They
may want to put this out to contract. Mr. Taylor added that this should be
considered if there is anything requiring additional man hours, when it makes
sense.
Mr. Kolb noted that they hire temporary workers during peak times. This is
administered by staff. Some of these things are being done less often, like ditch
work and striping.
Mr. Taylor said they should start dialogue with the cities. It might be timely to
start this type of thing in January. Maybe they can do more together. It could be a
pilot project for at least the three core cities. Mr. Kolb responded that they have
been doing some of this for a long time, such as chip sealing.
Mr. Taylor stated that they need to talk about equipment utilization, and shop
space, and cross-utilization of assets.
Mr. Holt said they are already working with some counties, but sometimes it is a
long way to those areas, such as Klamath County. Mr. Kolb stated they can swap
some with the BLM, depending on location. They do this if it makes sense.
Mr. Taylor noted that they should send a directive to departments and see what else
can be done. It is easier to take this information showing what is being done, and
then to ask for funds.
The group discussed revenue options and the August 20 survey results.
Ms. Taylor said they need to get to sustainable long-term funding that has the least
hardship. They kept coming back to a gas tax. This relates to the tourists and
others that are passing through. It was pointed out that the transient lodging tax
was well received, although it did not pass. People using the roads and
infrastructure help to pay those costs. Efforts should be kept up in this regard.
Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Page 3 of 8 Pages
Commissioner Unger noted that what was supported were primarily things that
locals did not have to pay themselves. Most of the room tax is generated in the
Sunriver area. It is difficult to support this because it is not that broad. That area
generates a lot of taxable property value and they were worried about driving away
tourists.
Mr. Taylor said that if there is a gas tax, people know what it is for and understand.
Much depends on how you tell the story. Bend has 30% of the traffic and should
share the burden. A lot of people come to the area who are not staying in lodging
facilities. Mostly this tax is consistent and long-term, but residents would of
course have to pay some of it.
Peter Russell stated that they might have to look at both a lower level. People
either want to go somewhere or not. They do not visit here based on the room tax.
There could be a lot of equity if you put both together.
It was pointed out that even people who do not drive benefit from the roads in a
variety of ways.
Clay Higuchi noted that the State needs to do something with the gas tax. They are
building electric charging stations, but those do not pay gas tax. Common sense
has been lost. Room tax and rental car costs can be very high. You get used to
that income. Some places charge a 19% room tax. This is another easy way of
getting the taxpayers to agree, but there is still an impact. If people want good
roads, they need to pay for them. Voters have a choice.
Chris Doty said that a gas tax is a dying funding mechanism and there will need to
be something to replace that. Counties and cities need to position themselves for a
new funding mechanism, and get a bigger piece of the pie then.
Mr. Higuchi stated that people who are not affected by the bad roads may not
support this; maybe just the ones who see the condition of the roads they use
declining.
Mr. Taylor said that there is a difference between a bond for capital improvements
and long-term maintenance issues. The question is, is the bond the right
mechanism. A bond is for short-term for roads that need a lot of help. After that,
they still need to be maintained. The gas tax at 1 cent per gallon helps to fill in the
deficiencies, at least for now. A user tax is the fairest tax.
Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Page 4 of 8 Pages
Mr. Doty stated there is a gas tax now, and the cities had a ninety-day gap to put a
gas tax in place before the moratorium. The Redmond City Council saw this as an
opportunity and voted to put it in. It got referred out and destroyed. People need
more information.
Mr. Taylor said these meetings allow a story to be told, and time to work on some
of these issues to make them more efficient, and then campaign for them.
Mr. Kolb asked about a vehicle registration fee. Mr. Taylor noted that this does
not capture the people coming through the State.
Mr. Doty said they need to index the revenue source at the State level. The OARs
and the League of Oregon Cities is not pressuring the State for this. It went in
during 1992 and was not raised until last year. There were a lot of missed
opportunities. They have a very strong lobby, making it hard for the legislature to
confront this. They have lost a lot of buying power. This needs to be firmly
established.
Mr. Russell added that this requires a courageous political vote. And it needs to be
tied to something so it automatically goes up.
It was noted that the largest employers in the State pay no property taxes: the
counties, cities and schools. Commissioner Unger said that he has said the same
thing. St. Charles is a nonprofit and does not pay on some big buildings. But if
they rent them out to doctors, it is then taxable. Mt. Bachelor does not pay on land
but pays on equipment. Mr. Taylor added that St. Charles also donated $40 million
in charity care each year. Commissioner Unger said that the federal government
makes payments in lieu of taxes.
Mr. Taylor stated that they need to make a strong recommendation to the County
without open-ended suggestions and no direction. The question is, do they add the
transient room tax option. They need to hand off options for the County to mull
over. It needs to be sold at the local level.
Mr. Olson said he feels there should be three options so it is not all put on the gas
tax or room tax part. Mr. Holt added that Oregon has been rated as 43rd in the
country for a business environment (per ALEC - American Legislative Exchange
Council measurements.). This needs to change.
Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Page 5 of 8 Pages
Mr. Taylor asked about looking at rock haulers, charging per ton. Mr. Holt said
this would just be passed on to the customers. It might have worked five years ago
when business was much better.
Mr. Doty noted that they need to explore all options. He is not that confident that a
bond is a good idea. Mr. Taylor said that a bond would work on major arterials.
This would come after the study is done.
Mr. Doty stated that for the most part the County is in maintenance business, and
none are at that level. The idea is that you do not borrow money for something
that will not last as long as the bond. Therefore, this does not apply to chip seals.
It might work for cities doing capital projects
Mr. Russell said that the transient lodging and gas taxes should go with indexing.
They cannot go after the gas tax until 2014 due to the moratorium. They can start
working on this one next year.
Mr. Kolb stated there are road districts throughout the County. However, these can
mean taking in multiple access roads that have to be fixed up first to take them in,
then there are more miles to maintain. Conrad Ruel noted that the road districts
paid a lot to make their roads better.
Mr. Olson said that all cost-cutting measures need to be in place first and the PCI
and other projections need to be known. Mr. Kolb noted that they still need to find
something in the meantime.
Mr. Taylor said they should add the transient lodging tax as an option, maybe as a
stand-alone the following year.
Mr. Doty stated that cities can charge a utilities franchise right of way fee. There
is no vote needed. It can go into the general fund or be designated. It was pointed
out that State law prohibits counties from charging this. It needs leverage at the
State level.
Mr. Higuchi said they need to look at their phone bill. States are taking the money
and not spending it on emergency services like they were supposed to. It would
have to be designated and not go into the general fund.
Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Page 6 of 8 Pages
Commissioner Unger stated that cities have a lot of utilities in their roads. Electric
power is the main one. But, with broadband, satellites and others, there would be
no franchise fee. It covers just those that have wires. This creates an inequity.
Mr. Doty noted that this is a dying revenue source.
A fee to haul aggregate is tied to construction, but nothing much is happening now.
Tipping fees are down for the same reason. This might be singling out one
industry when there are other shippers hauling heavy items. They are already
being taxed for the fuel used.
Mr. Russell said he would like to see some kind of fee on studded tires. Maybe
call it a road damage fee. Either people will be happy to pay it or they will change
their ways and not damage the roads. Mr. Taylor said this would just affect people
in rural areas where they buy these tires the most.
Mr. Holt said they need to generate more income to just keep the same level of
service. The sources now are for building or maintaining roads. There is a lot of
money spent on roads that have nothing to do with cars. For instance, bicycles. It
is a good idea, but should not be a free ride. The things that roads bring should
have rider fees. How are these people helping to fund these needs?
Mr. Ruel stated they talked about this at County College, about the possibility of a
license for bicycles. Mr. Higuchi asked how they can get tourist to pay this. Mr.
Doty said that most of them have vehicles. Mr. Olson added that they pay for
snow parks, gas and other things as well and bring a lot of income to the area.
Mr. Kolb said the County used to get timber payments, but now the forests are
used for a lot of other things.
Mr. Taylor stated there is a difference between a fee and a tax. You will not get all
of them but need to figure out where the energy should go. For instance, the City
of Bend road bond. He is concerned about suggesting eight items and failing on all
of them, or picking out a few and going for it.
It appears the gas tax is the most logical, along with a transient room tax. The
County charges less than is charged within the cities.
Mr. Russell said the gas tax was approved by the voters, but had to be revenue
shared with the cities.
Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Page 7 of 8 Pages
Erik Kropp said that reducing work hours may be subject to bargaining, but he is
not sure. Mr. Kolb stated they may just not fill positions as they are vacated, but
this can only go so far.
Mr. Kropp suggested that a work session with the Board may be helpful once a
draft recommendation is ready.
Mr. Taylor said that it will be nice to know how to recognize the work that has
been done so far. They may want to follow up within six months on what has
taken place.
Commissioner Unger said there are no good choices to increase revenue. The
public is not ready for this.
Mr. Taylor stated that they need to implement a system that allows for what the
roads are now, which is basically good. They need to plan from there. If a lower
standard is okay, less revenue is needed. They should work with the cities to
reduce costs. Then work on telling the story of the process. This may help to
make a recommendation for a gas tax easier.
The next meeting is scheduled for December 14 at 4:00 p.m.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
6VV~NUA--
Bonnie Baker
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Road Study Group Meeting Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Page 8 of 8 Pages
.D
L
O O
N
Z
CIO
E
I
O
N
aj
1
M
o
v0
M
02
~
V
L
a~
4
C
pi,
kj
V)
co
co
a,
co
I
4
O
v
c0
v
z
a~
;
x
cY
ac~
l 75
Q)
c
L
{ry
I
I
>
Z N
co
to
E
N
C
0
t
C.
4
V~
N
N
Q~
L
4
V
C
CJ
~
C
.Q
O
~ 'y
co
V
a~
~
E
Z
a
1. Develop a Road Maintenance plan using the Pavement Condition Index (PCI
ADT, and roadway classification.
a. Switch to PMS system from Capital Asset and Pavement Services. This is
the same system used by the City of Bend, Redmond and Crook County.
i. Startup cost would be approx. $30,000 with $1,500 annual
licensing/software fee which would be less than 1 % of
maintenance budget.
ii. Cost per year to have the Consultant do inspections would be
approx. $11,000 which is less than 0.2% of maintenance budget.
County could save this cost/year using a FTE that is trained in the
program (cost of FTE this year for entire system inspection was
$11,451).
iii. Determine the lowest PCI value that is acceptable to the Road
Department and fund maintenance accordingly.
2. Identify different methods of construction/maintenance methods and how they tie
back into the PCI rating:
a. Currently the following methods are used by the County for road
maintenance:
i. Full Depth Reclamation ($320,000/mile)
ii. Overlay ($210,000/mile)
iii. Chip Seal ($23,650/mile)
iv. Fog Seal ($4,400/mile)
v. Sand Seal ($20,000/mile)
vi. Slurry Seal ($23,650/mile, not a lot of cost history on this so needs
more research)
vii. Thin Asphalt Overlay ($100,000/mile)
viii. Possible return of some roads to gravel surfacing ($5,662/mile)
ix. Possible use of concrete for road surfacing (roller compacted
concrete)
3. Prioritize services based on funding:
a. Road Department will need to manage the current assets with less income.
This could include:
i. Reduced staffing levels and/or reduced work week.
1. Not filling a road maintenance worker position saves
approximately $80,000/year
2. Going to a 36 hr. workweek saves approximately
$385,861/year
ii. Look at privatization of some services that are now done by
County forces:
1. Snow removal (already done at a local level)
2. Sanding
3. Hazard removal
4. Signs and road striping (look at contracting out
installation of State bicycle route signs)
5. Sweeping (Cities help County where a vac. truck is
needed)
6. General maintenance
7. Bridge maintenance (contracting this out and also
replacing bridges with culverts when possible)
8. Channel maintenance & rip-rap (contract with irrigation
companies when possible)
9. Culvert replacement(contract with irrigation companies
when possible)
10. Ditch cleaning
11. Roadside tree trimming and removal
12. Mowing
13. Roadside weed control
14. Roadside features, mail boxes, fences
15. Cattle guard repairs and installations
16. Guard rails
17. Emergency Maintenance
18. Roadside trash pick-up and disposal
19. Dead animal pick up and disposal
4. Consolidate services with other agencies:
a. Start dialog with cities of Bend, Redmond and Sisters to determine what
services can be shared.
b. Conversation concerning this topic has already begun with the City of
Bend.
5. Revenue options for the Road Department:
a. Sustainable/Long Term funding:
i. Build a campaign model and present information to the voters of
Deschutes County on why a gas tax is a sensible option for
funding.
1. $0.01 per gallon gas tax = $800,000 per year (County's
share would depend upon revenue sharing agreement with
the cities)
2. Moratorium does not allow a new gas tax until after
January 1, 2014
b. Short Duration:
i. County Road Bonding Act: to be considered if long term solutions
still do not generate enough revenue.
1. Bond amount would be specified by governing agency
based on a list of priority projects to be completed with a
specified time frame. Similar to the City of Bend's bond
measure this past year.
Road Maintenance Survey Results
August 10, 2011
Discussions about road maintenance funding in Deschutes County have been ongoing in recent years.
These discussions gained a sense of urgency in 2007 when it became apparent that federal money used
for road maintenance would be lost and measures would have to be taken to fill a $3 million gap in the
County's road maintenance budget
Since then, road funding strategies have not raised as much as anticipated due to the recession and the
collapse of the housing market
Unfortunately, the County's revenue-raising choices are limited. They include a Transient Lodging Tax,
Local Gas Tax, Local Vehicle Registration Fee, an Aggregate Fee, Transportation Utility Fee (Road User
Fee), County Service District for Roads, Property Tax (Local Option Tax), or a County Road Bonding Act
The County can also reduce its road maintenance budget by allowing paved local roads to return to
gravel.
In the past month, we designed a brief survey to ask the public their feedback on the following road
maintenance funding options.
During the survey period, 241 people started the survey and 223 (92.5%) fully completed it.
One error exists in the results of the survey. The second funding option below did not receive any
responses most likely due to an error during the design process and did not appear as a choice to survey
respondents:
"LOCAL GAS TAX: Estimated annual revenue=$0.01 per gallon gas tax=$800,000 per year (Note: the
County's share would depend upon revenue sharing agreement with the cities). Statutory authority: Gas
tax must be approved by the voters and is then imposed by ordinance. Collection of tax is administered
by the State. (Note: 2009 legislature imposed a 4-year moratorium on city and county gas tax ordinances
and required voter approval of such taxes after January 1, 2014. Other counties currently levying:
Multnomah County, Washington County. There are also 14 cities in Oregon that levy a gas tax."
Please keep in mind that this survey, powered by SurveyMonkey.com, is not a statistically valid study and
was informally created and submitted to respondents. Its purpose is to educate Deschutes County
residents about future road maintenance funding options and to engage them in their choices. Research
professionals would advise that if we conducted a scientific study, we would see similar trends in the
results, although numbers would be different
1
Here are the results of the mad maintenance funding survey.
1. TRANSIENT LODGING TAX: Estimated annual r venur-CumeM rate of 7% generates
$2,626,000 in 201142 An increase of 2% (9X total) would generate additional revenue of
$750,000 per year. Currently, no counties levy room tax for transportation purposes.
133 respondents (56.6%) preferred this funding option, 51 comments total
raANSrEff 10061MG TAX Esttwswd awed nranurCwmi r.H ofrx
pMwms 562 4W b 2t111.1t An inaN o12%0x wwl would "wm
sddidwd rowiwo 01 fT OM psr yw. Cwmft, no coundas WV rooa tan for
tran$WUdon purpos-
I read ffW*
feb9odeeiG
t116ke:Ns000an
t~ I d,Gkedis apdon
tlowdoycufte
this road nbid&wme
Nna"option?
2. LOCAL GAS TAX Estimated annual revenue=$0.01 per gallon gas tax= 00,000 per year
(Notes the County's share would depend upon revenue sharing agreement with the dies).
Statutory authority: Gas tax must be approved by the voters and is then Imposed by
ordifgnce. Collection of tax is adrolnistard by the Stab. (Note: 2009 legislature imposed
4.year moratorium on city and courtly gas tax ordinances and required voter approval of
such taxes after January 1, 2014. Other counties currently levying: Multnomah County,
Washington County. There are also 14 cities in Oregon that levy a gas tax. ERROR-NO
RESULTS FOR THIS OPTION.
3. LOCAL VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE: Estimated annual revenue-depends upon fee. The
County curreritly has 199,254 registered vehicles. A registration The of $15 (biennial
registration period) would yield $1,494,000 per yew. Under state law 40% of the collected
fee goes to the cities within the County unless the cities agree to a different percentage.
60% of $1,494,000=$896.000 per year. Statutory authority: Registration fee must be a whole
dollar amount and cannot exceed the state fee (currently $54 biennial). Fee must be
approved by voters and established by ordinance. Other counties currently levying:
Multnomah County adopted a $38 (biennial) vehicle registration he in 2009 to help fund
the Sellwood Bridge replacement. 113 respondents (49.3%) disliked this option, 48
comments total
LOCAL VEI9CLE REGISTRATION FEE: Estimated annual tewnue-depends upon
for. The County currently has 199256 registered vehldee. A registration tae of SiS
(biennial registration period) would *M 51.494,000 per year. Under stag law 40%
01 ties collected in goes to the cities within the County unless the cities agree to a
different psece"e. 60% of $1.494.000-SMOOO per year. Statutory authority:
Registration be must be a whole dollar amount and cannot exceed ttte state fee
(currently SS6 blsnnislJ Fee must be approwd by vows and established by
ordinance. Other counties currently levyhgr 6lututorsaN county adopted a Sate
(biennial) vehicle registration tN in 2009 to help fund the Seliwood Bridge
replacement.
I
Q0
-
.°A
s0
20
Q
Howdoyoume
this reed meirKertertCe
ttpldhf70t7lIOfl~
I reed more
irfo W dende
a~1OshkathsO0don
3
4. AGGREGATE FEE (Natural Resource Transportation Fee) Estimated annual
revenuenW0,000 per year at $0.1 Won Statutory authority: Must be approved by the
voters and imposed by County ordinance. Other counties currently levying: Columbia
County ($0.15 per ton) fee is levied on the transportation of aggregate Into or within the
county. 81 respondents (35.8%) said they needed more information before deciding
AGGREGATE FEE (Natural Resource Trmisportadon Fee)Estimeted annual
revenue-SM000 per year at S0151tonStat mW a dhotity Must be approved by
the voters and imposed by County ordinance. Odw ooundes currently trying:
Co(umb(a County (SO.15 per ton) (w is Wed on du tanspotmdon of "W"sw
Into or within the County.
1 new mae
mb to decide
n11 ROM is COW
IM I dishketis atea►
Now►doyou*e
this road mainte t we
fwdtngoption?
4
5. TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEE (road User Fee) Estimated annual revenue is dependent
upon fee structure. $1 per month (single family dwelling) 4730,000 per year (county-wide)
or $=,000 (unincorporated only) Statutory authority: Fee implemented by County
ordinance. Monthly fee charged to residents and businesses (similar to sewer or water fee)
used for road maintenance. Fee Is based on type of dwelling or business and estimated
trips generated by usage. Other jurisdledons currently levying a transportation utility fee
include some cities but no counties at thb time. 68 respondents (31.1%) liked this option,
36 comments total
TRANSPORTATION MUTY FEE (Roar Usti Fet)EsdMdW am" fft*m w is
~/rtiTw+MfMaatKaaaS1 Pu~MNM(s~Ir~M/Ir~"li~MeM
ytw (coumy.v"*jos S250.00 (unhwwpoaad W*)SWWW tudwd - Few
impkwonW by Cawy wdf*mct. Moaddy ttt tbergM a rttidtab and
~iMMsi ~`w/ N slfitrM M 1rMM iNh wM elf Mfi/ wtiI111Ma01► rt. b NMd
o.typw.rawi~.rfaiw.r/.,ie1M ~lwnwMd w~ ar
jrlMialera~~ttvyi~ a s~poi/rw rilyrMidrN swMdMirtr
en.riraiei.i..
reed mere
As irlolodetidd
■/tmodisco m
S i d shkertis option
lkwdoyw ik*
tft ra d mafntenenca
S
S. COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT FOR ROADS Estimated annual revenue: Dependent upon
funding method. A rural district (unincorporated area) tax levy rate of $0.53 would
generate $3.0 million (based on FY 1041 taxable assessed values). Would exclude existing
road districts. Statutory authority: Requires vote to form a district. Illy assess service or
user charges, connection charges, district ad valorem taxes, issue bonds, local option
taxes or any combination of these. 108 respondents (49.3°/x) said they disliked this option,
27 comments total
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT FOR ROADSEsdtnated annual rewnur.Oependent
upon funding in~. A rural district (unincogwstrd anal tax I#q tatlof SIL53
would generate $10 millton (based on FY 10-11 taxable assessed vahiasE Wbuld
exclude esisdng road dlstricts.Stanitory authority: Requires vote to form a dls&kL
My assess smAce or user chaism connection chargm district advalorem taxe%
lssw bonds. local opdon taxes or any combination of thaw
I nee0 mono
a0 iR{x'AQ6CiQe
el~lhkedrsapeon
ell ! dslikedir option
Howdo ycU kke
this mad maintenance
N"" op kro
7. PROPERTY TAX (Local Option Tax) Estimated annual revenue: A county-wide rate of $0.18
would generate $3.0 million. A mral-only rate of :0.53 would generate $3.0 million (based
on FY 1041 taxable assessed values). Statutory autthorW. Must be approved by the
voters. Tax can only be authorized for 5 years or, H for a capital project, the expected
useful We of the project up to a amdmum of 10 years. 50% of the tax shall be apportioned
to cites as per ORS 38x.705 to 368.710. It is unknown as to whether or not other
jurisdictions are currently levying in this mariner. 158 respondents (71.5%) disliked this
option, 221 comments total
PROPERTY TAX (Local Opdow Tes)Estimeted anaud revs me: A couna wide rate
of SOL18 wiouid pmrtaa S3 0 nWoa. A surat.oaty taut of S0.5I would game* S?.Q
mUllon Masod-on FY 10-11 taxbblo assessed valuesLStatutory aabotbr. Mug be
approved by the voters. rax can only be authotitatd tors yeas or. it feat a capital
project, the expected use" life of the project up to a maxbnum of to years. 50%0!
Ow tax shall be apportioned to calks as pry ORS 36LM to 36VID Is is unknown
as to wktlw a not odwe judsdkdoas are, curready levying in this aumw,
t ~ceC+nore
~ ia'tObdtti00
tl~ t htcels cGOUt
fi 1 ds4kedrs o04m
Howdoyoukke
tins rood masiMa+nance
!uax5a9ts~tidf?
71
8. COUNTY ROAD BONDING ACT Estimated annual revenue: The bond amount to be
specified by the governing body. Statutory authority: Authority to Issue bonds must be
decided In an election. Funding amount needed for redemption and Interest payments on
outstanding bonds is added to the general levy of taxes (levied upon all taxable property
within the county). Money raised under this authority must be used for the construction
and maintenance of permanent roads In the County. It Is unknown whether or not other
jurisdictions are currently levying in this manner. 109 respondents (501/6) disliked this
option, 28 comments total
COUNTY ROAD WRONG ACTEsdmated annual rewmw The bond amount to be
spa lfled by the governing body. Statutory autbodlp AWWW to baw bonds
must be decided In an sba(on. Funding amount at tided loe tedemption and-
intwrest payments on outstanding bonds is added to, die general levy ortauts
pevied upon all taxable property within dw couat . lironay abed under obis
eudw$W must be used lac die tonstnrcrion and maiatertanor orpennaneatroads
in dot Coumy. It is unlmown w1wdter or not odor iwisdictions are curremly !wying
in this manner.
1 need more
~i inl.I.dO[ide
arnt I IikeNs eta
r 165l;kethiscodcn
Howdoyawne
this rood mans e
fundng option?
8
9. ALLOW PAVED LOCAL ROADS TO RETURN TO GRAVEL Potential annual
savings=$2 million Deschutes County currently maintains 280 miles of
paved local roads. Local roads are small, lightly traveled roads that
generally serve individual residential neighborhoods or rural areas. The
cost of maintaining a gravel road is about half the cost of maintaining a
paved road. 106 respondents (48.4%) preferred this option, 55 comments
ALLOW PAVED LOCAL. ROADS TO RETURN TO GRAVELPoundat anntd
SWAMP-W eMwMCowgatrwnlg0doWM2NMUNdpre/fad
antra Lard stir em smalL lightly smiled lady eaM ley stem itdarild
wtirtrfid arir-Whoods of meal awra TM arts of 1141,6lMy a Rtrel arts b
aMatrt Half tit 0600 dtatalairte alp atti
~N
40
20
60-
:0
20
0
kiowdoyou"
gisroodmtrfrxtt W40
fund"Viar?
Ireeanwo
a• ifbtcbl exile
aan 1 hkddns 00606
M laslikatwit %don
COME M received and organized by f uiftq option and quesbon ca" M typo:
TRANSIENT LMGWG TAX
Sample of supportive comments:
1. This will gain revenue from tourists who use our roads
2. It would make visitors to our city, who use our roadways, also responsible for its maintenance. It
shouldn't all be on the citizens who reside In Deschutes County.
3. Although 1 doWt faver placing an additional tax burden on visitors. I think it's fair to expel visitors
to help shoulder the expense of maintaining local roads that they use lbr recreational purposes.
4. Tourism should pay for a portion of road maintenance - especially in Deschutes County
* Room taxes paid by visitors should not affed business, many resort areas have higher room
taxes and people flock them. Our area is worth it Gravel / dirt roads donY make a good
impression.
* Tourists have a big impact on the roads.
7. t like this because touftn is a HUGE part of the local economy. Property owner are already
heavily tand. Tiros for the visitors to pay more as well.
91
8. Good option because visitors would contribute to road maintenance, but are they already with gas
tax?
9. As a destination resort town that is focused on tourism, it's only natural that those who come to
enjoy everything that Bend offers, helps pay for it too.
10. With no sales tax, this is one way to share the cost of maintaining our roads with the tourists that
frequent Central Oregon.
11. Tourism is our growing industry; a 2% increase in taxes will not discourage those who really want
to be here. In Florida, while going to Disney World, I dropped about $30 in toll fees and did it
gladly.
12. As long as the tax is not significantly larger than the sales taxes of the states our tourists come
from, I don't see this dissuading visitation and also a good way to generate revenue.
13. Bend is a tourist economy. The people who come here to visit (and play) should pay for access to
their vacation party land. Good roads are part of the deal.
14. Most counties have a transient lodging tax between 7%-9%. This area brings in many travelers
that visit to experience the rugged wilderness and the remote upscale resorts. I think this is a win-
win; good roads leading to terrific destinations.
15. The hotels are doing pretty good with all the events each weekend in the County. The hotel
owners will grumble, but the tourists can help pay for the services they come in and use.
16. Soak the tourists; spare the locals.
17. 1 think tourists need to help pay for the use of county resources.
Sample of apposing comments:
1. TRT funds should be used for tourism generation. No tourism and we will have to remove even
more roads
2. It might hurt the local business that depend on tourists
3. A higher tax on visitors might keep some folks from coming to Bend.
4. This makes out tourism industry less competitive.
5. 1 think this will hurt tourism... something we desperately need.
6. Why should the tourists pay more to use our roads?
7. It would seem that raising this tax would increase the loss of revenue from folks who might see
this as a "decision maker" to buy an RV to travel with
8. A lot of small businesses rely on tourism. This quick fix option is not an intelligent way to raise
revenue.
9. The transient lodging taxes are already far too high. Deschutes County needs to keep transient
lodging affordable to encourage people to vacation here.
10. Does not generate any revenue from the main users, Deschutes County Residents. Would hurt
tourism.
11. TLT should stick with its original purpose - funding tourism related purchases
12. How about a 4% increase no one will stay here because the room tax is too high
13. This is taxing an unrelated area and dings one aspect of the tourist industry that many others
depend upon
LOCAL VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE
Sample of supportive comments
1. Oregon fees are too low-an increase is due.
2. Even those without cars benefit from the roads for delivery of goods and services.
3. If you drive on the roadways, you help maintain them. Especially now that we have and are
working towards public transportation.
4. 1 think this is a good option as long as it remains fairly low and doesn't continue to grow. It seems
like $15 is a very reasonable amount and spreads the burden to those who use the roads.
5. Not a bad idea.
6. I'd be willing to pay if road maintenance kept up.
7. It would give me the feeling i was able to do something about those potholes i was out there
avoiding.
8. Seems a fair way for local drivers to support our roads.
9. This option is OK.
to
1. Deschutes County buys there agg from outside resources and this TAX would be passed on to
the buyers of there product
2. Hurts one sector too much for too small a gain.
3. Add this and later add logging truck or Wal-Mart truck fees. Bad idea.
4. Makes little sense. Why should aggregate have an extra tax
5. Stupid
6. What is wrong with you guys? We cannot keep funding you....
7. Not the time to stain business additionally. Yes these vehicles put a lot of wear and tear on the
road, but we need business to maintain status quo
8. Very little return, the added cost of processing the tax does not seem to be a good value.
Questions/statements
1. Sounds ok, but need more info on this. Has it been successful in Columbia County?
2. Need more information
3. If aggregate means all transportation of bulk goods.
4. 1 don' know what this fee is.
5. 1 don't understand what this means.
6. Makes little sense. Why should aggregate have an extra tax
7. How much would this impact road costs? Trucks have big impact, but why single out just
aggregate haulers?
8. This is very confusing - who pays the fees?
9. 1 am ignorant of current policy regarding weights and measures in the county and how well
loaded trucks are weighed. I know personally contractors who regularly are overweight. This has
to impact the roads longevity. If the county were imposing a tonnage fee, then perhaps this would
be watched much closer.
10. Possibly consider but need more information first.
11. This heavy traffic puts a great deal of wear on roadways.
12. 1 don't quite understand this.
13. Not clear on the relationship between aggregate and roads other than loaded vehicle weight
TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEE
Sample of supportive comments
1. This is equitable. Everyone using roads helps pay for maintenance.
2. This seems fair and relatively painless.
3. This is evenly assessed per household. Even homes that do not own cars walk and bike and
receive deliveries and the benefit of emergency services on adequately maintained roads. It is fair
across the board.
4. We all use the roads, let's all pay for them, could be higher
5. This is ok, although the citizens will balk. Again, went on a trip to Florida, paid a lot of tolls ...and
did it with a glad heart because the roads were in immaculate shape (I should know, I'm married
to a paver), and it is a charge for USE, so non-users are not penalized.
6. 1 like this option also as it appears to charge folks based on actual use of the roads and whether
or not it is a business that generates revenue by utilizing the roads.
7. Favor if includes allocation of county-wide collected fees between cities and counties
Sample of opposing comments
1. Does not seem to generate much revenue
2. Seems silly and doesn't raise much revenue. It is disconnected from the activity.
3. Unfair to people with only one vehicle or do not drive
4. Too complicated and costly to start up.
5. To hard to calculate accurately
6. Houses don't use the roads. Bad idea.
7. Businesses don't need anymore reasons to move out of state.
8. Has little relationship to road usage
9. Property tax is already too high because there is no off-setting sales tax. Let the tourists help.
12
10. 1 like this, people who drive pay.
11. State registration fees are biennial, so I prefer a biennial fee that is paid at the same time as the
state fee.
12. This makes the most sense to me. Cars ruin the roads ...hence let anyone driving a car pay a little
more to maintain the roads.
13. Makes some sense as these are the users.
14. $54 is very reasonable. In SLC, UT they pay over $1500 per year (it is based on the value of the
car - with older cars having a lower rate) although that was also some sort of tax, too, in addition
to the fee) but people paid it!
15. This is a single tax that also benefits the cities. Simple to administer. Good.
16. 1 like this idea if fee is nominal and used in conjunction with a nominal gas tax as it would secure
funding from all residents benefiting from the roads as well as secure funding from tourists to
assist in the maintenance costs.
17. If raising taxes or fees is the only way, this seems to make the most sense.
Sample of opposing comments
1. A horrible and unfair option.
2. Property taxes, especially on rural residents (double sheriff taxes for example) are burdensome
enough.
3. Owning an auto is already too expensive. Don't add to it.
4. The fees have already skyrocketed in recent years. This is NOT a viable option for those of us
who are forced to register many vehicles per year. Currently, just for me to scrap a "dead vehicle"
at my transmission shop I must pay $77 per vehicle to change the title. 1 get $200 on the average
for scrapping them. Those that require registration so they can be fixed and sold now cost me
$191, this is simply ridiculous.
5. This does not spread the cost of road maintenance to transient travellers.
6. I'm in the 3rd year of wage and hour cuts and struggle to pay the current registration fee.
7. No more taxes lay some people off.......
8. 1 personally already buy a "specialized" license plate to help support cultural events. I would not
like to pay more.
9. It is bothersome to think that we have to register with the State AND the County. Transient traffic
wears on the roads, too; why should only locals pay for our roads?
10. Does not generate revenue from tourists.
11. 1 already register my car!
AGGREGATE FEE
Sample of supportive comments
1. Absolutely. These larger trucks, etc. are the real villains that tear up the roads.
2. Yeah! That's what I'm talking 'bout! This way, we are charging for use, not penalizing the non-
users of the roads.
3. Anything to encourage fewer automobiles and trucks on the road, and more
bikes/environmentally friendly transportation and recreation!
4. Again, taxes those who put wear and tear on the roads.
5. Trucks hauling aggregate certainly contribute to the wear and tear of our roads. Since they are
generating monies from this activity, it seems only fair they contribute more than a regular citizen.
6. It is merely my assumption that moving aggregate is a necessity of the construction trade - all the
developers that buy up the land. 1 think aggregate fees and road development and improvement
fees should be charged to these developers anyway. This may contribute to more thoughtful
development planning and better quality properties. What many of these developers have been
mass producing over the past 15 years poorly built homes with crumbling concrete, leaking pipes
and collapsing roofs. The quality of construction has been pretty low even though the cost of
housing has been through the roof.
7. This will be passed on to the one buying/using the aggregate: It might further slow down the
"development' of Deschutes County, which I believe is a good thing.
Sample of opposing comments
11
10. People have enough monthly bills to pay.
11. Read my lips "no new taxes"!!!
12. Only actual usage measures would result in fair distribution of costs. This method does not
provide for that.
13. This provides no consideration for the disparity in family incomes.
14. This seems unfair. I live one mile from work. Will I pay the same amount and my co-worker who
drives in from La Pine?
Questionsistatements
1. What about people without vehicles, home bound?
2. Would the revenue be segregated or comingled into one fund?
3. How much would it cost to collect since County generally does not bill monthly? Seems
inefficient.
4. 1 need to read up more on exactly how this option works and whether or not it will be factored into
perpetuity.
5. May be more palatable to citizens if it is for the entire county, but then again. It doesn't require
voter approval.
6. How does it get billed?
COUNTY ROAD SERVICE DISTRICT
Sample of supportive comments
1. Would be willing to pay but at LOWER rate.
Sample of opposing comments
1. No more taxes like this - PLEASE!!!!
2. Very complicated and makes little sense.
3. Start talking about cutting expenses, not raising taxes
4. Value of property not related to use of roads
5. Residents will not like this very much. It may be that those residents are willing to pay for their
roads' upkeep, but will not feel good about the others who traverse their roads to get to their own!
6. My house is on a gravel road now and I get zero help from the government in maintaining it. This
would amount a fee and getting absolutely nothing in return.
7. Many, many people who live within city limits use the county roads frequently for skiing, camping,
hiking, fishing, cycling, dirt bike riding, quad riding. There is not a single day goes by when the
bikers are not on the road or the anglers are not at the water. Farming and cattle ranching is not
all that strong in this area. Given the area we live in, I don't really believe this would be a fair tax.
8. Discriminatory and unfair to charge rural residence without charging city residents, tourists and
businesses that utilize the county roads.
Questionsistatements
1. Might work, but would be tough sell at polls.
2. Save room for LTD's.
3. The state should enact a tax for roads other than on property
4. Voters would likely not pass it
5. This will be voted down strictly for the principal of higher taxes.
6. Could be supplemented by a gas tax to charge visitors.
7. Develop a 10 year plan to return paved rural local roads to gravel. Offer rural voters the option to
create a road district to avoid implementation of the plan.
8. Everybody in the county should pay the fees.
9. 1 think it should be county wide and shared with the local road authorities.
10. $0.53 per $1,000 assessed value?
11. There should be no "unincorporated only" taxation as those that live in the cities travel the
"unincorporated county" roads. They should also pay to maintain the roads.
12. Does it still share funds with the cities?
13
13. These roads are used by more than just the rural residents. I'd rather see the roads go to gravel
than pay to maintain paved roads. I grew up on gravel roads. It is a good way to slow traffic down
in rural areas, saving a lot of our wildlife from death and injury.
14. People who want to live in the'country' should pay for their roads. We in the city pay for more of
the road maintenance fee
15. On that last sentence, what is "My assess service?"
16. 1 think this option would require the County to maintain roads currently classified as Local Access
Roads. There is a typo in the statutory authority line above
17. While I'm sure we all use county roads frequently, if you make the choice to live outside of the
city, you should be aware of the costs of that lifestyle. At the same time, I don't think it unfair to
charge city residences to pay a small portion of this tax.
18. Good idea to exclude existing LIDS
PROPERTY TAX
Sample of supporting comments
1. Would be willing to pay but at LOWER RATE.
2. This is not a bad option, but the voters would never vote for it.
3. Its a good idea but will not pass
Sample of opposing comments
1. Property taxes are already too high.
2. Property taxes are already too high.
3. Do not add to property taxes. Though we would be able to take this form of taxation off our
federal taxes, I still dislike this option.
4. NO!!! Enough on property tax already!! Stop trying to bury us!!
5. Property taxes are currently very high compared to other States
6. Not going to happen
7. I dislike property taxes as they don't reflect an ability to pay if the homeowner has wages slashed
or medical emergencies.
8. Do not raise property taxes... you should be lowering them.
9. Rural roads have fewer users - therefore each user will need to pay more than their urban
counterpart.
10. Unfairly targets property owners to carry burden which should be shared by everyone, residents,
and businesses and to some degree, tourists.
Questionsistatements
1. I would like a tax other than on property-State wide
2. Gas Tax for road users only, local and visiting. Flat fee for Hybrids.
3. Voters won't approve - must be renewed
4. Why county wide and rural only?
5. I'm tired of feeling penalized because I own a home.
6. Could be supplemented by a gas tax to charge visitors.
7. Registration fee increase vs. transportation utility fee vs. property tax (don't know if I would want
all of them)
8. Like that its time limited, but with recent Bend City bond, I doubt it would pass in the cities and
county rate is too high to pass.
9. Property owners are likely to own and operate vehicles according to how much property they
own.
10. Only if countywide
11. Use of roads is not determined by value of property; gravel hauling companies put heavy use on
roads, but their lot where they park their trucks may have little property value
12. So many property taxes aren't being paid with their foreclosure rates. You can raise the prop
taxes, but won't get the revenue you hope for since so many properties are delinquent in paying
property tax...
14
13. Property taxes are currently very high compared to other States
14. Need other sources of revenue besides property tax and income tax. How about a fixed, voter
approved sales tax on other than necessities?
15. Only if this was a 5-year levy and not a capital levy. Also, there should be no "unincorporated
only" taxation as those that live in the cities travel the "unincorporated county' roads. They should
also pay to maintain the roads.
16. When we raise property taxes, it should be for something where there are no logical options other
than property taxes, like education.
17. 1 still feel ripped off, but at least it's more evenly distributed.
18. These roads are used by more than just property owners.
19. County wide, not rural only unless it is only for rural roads!
20. This brings up the question of Local Access Roads
21. See above comment. I don't think it fair to make city residences pay equally with county only
residences in this tax. A larger portion should fall to those county only residences. Perhaps a
75/25 ratio?
COUNTY ROAD BONDING ACT
Sample of supportive comments
1. 1 would say this would be appropriate at this time.
2. Best option
Sample of opposing comments
1. NO MORE DEBT
2. No more debt. Let's pay as we go!
3. Not fair to city residents.
4. bonds should not be used for maintenance
5. I'd rather see the roads go to gravel. I can say this because I live on gravel roads (Serenity Way
and Paradise Alley) off of Hwy 20. 1 see no need for the extra costs of building and maintaining a
County paved road system.
6. No more borrowing and adding future debt to future generations. Let's live within our means.
Increase revenues, decrease spending and get out of debt
Questions/statement
1. OR combination of license fees.
2. doubt voters would approve
3. 1 think we should use ANY money we get or have on ROAD way improvements. Not used for
redoing handicap perfectly good sidewalk approaches "ramps"
4. Limit the bond to a five year period. Offset the bond levy by reducing the county general levy by
an equivalent amount to keep the total tax burden the same.
5. Sounds equitable for would not be a long-term solution for a long-term problem.
6. How is the bond repaid?
7. This does not appear to be stable.
8. Again, goes after the poor property owner who already bears too much of the burden.
9. cut your salaries do a better job next time.
10. 1 need a better understanding on how the bonds will be repaid. Will this in effect become a levy
for the general fund?
11. you've got to be kidding!!!
12. This option allows the citizen to choose and if chosen, revenues raised will be borne equally
across the board.
13. This is not a bad option, but the voters would never vote for it.
14. Last resort...
15. Bonds need to be specific, so it is a good option for preservation overlays and new construction,
not so good for maintenance
16. Is compression a possible issue here?
15
17. Maybe this would be a good option, but I would only want to see the funds raised go to
maintenance. Let's forsake new construction if it means putting new lines on the map. We've
already got plenty of roads that we obviously can't maintain as it is.
18. subjects an ongoing continual need to invest in infrastructure to fluctuations in voter whims, but it
does add accountability
PAVED ROADS TO GRAVEL
Sample of supportive comments
1. I like this option if it is not within an incorporated city. Suddenly coming upon a gravel road within
a city would be strange and potentially hazardous.
2. Now we are getting somewhere... this is the kind of thinking that you need to be doing......
3. Absolutely. Great place to save.
4. Makes sense
5. If voters are not willing to pay more for the maintenance required, then I am all for this. I would
love to see a public service announcement to all county residents and allow them to provide their
input I know county meetings are public but if we sent special notice of this important issue and
asked specifically their input on these options, those folks most affected if we allow the roads to
return to gravel will have less room to complain, although we know there will still be complaints.
6: This may be a good option, if it is still very safe for those rural residents to drive on these roads
daily and in inclement weather.
7. This is my preferred option. Gravel County roads are fine by me. Let rural property owners take
responsibility for maintaining their own road frontage as we do on Serenity Way. That way you
get what you pay for, with no right to complain about the conditions and grip about government
8. Deschutes County sees a lot of tourism money in cycling. returning to gravel could be OK but
need to be careful that they are not roads used in events, and on common local cycling routes.
9. Although I dislike this VERY MUCH, it is the most viable
10. Seems to make fiscal sense
11. Brilliant!
Sample of opposing comments
1. A huge mistake and a step backwards that would end up lowering values of property and costing
county more.
2. That would most likely drop the appeal of housing in those rural areas in an already slow housing
market.
3. Start with Skyliners Rd.
4. It will deter people and companies from relocating to Central Oregon if they see the County is not
well maintained.
5. Don't need to be a third world county, we can afford to pay
6. This would be an incredible disservice to the county. We have tourism to consider. I don't know
how much tourism business, conferences, as well as national events we would get here if our
roads went back to gravel
7. Bad idea. Few people that live on paved roads want to live on dirt (want gravel turns into). Paved
is worth it if gravel is so costly to maintain. Hard on people with asthma and allergies. If I wanted
a gravel road I'd have bought a house on one.
8. Terrible idea!!!
9. This is absurd. DO NOT do this, please.
10. Our standard of living is in decline. This appropriately reflects the trend.
11. Still have dust, more expense and man hours for grading, more complaints from residents.
Everyone wants and expects to live on paved road. There are plenty of public roads that are not
maintained by the county because are not to standards. It is a step backward and will give area a
bad name.
12. 1 currently use Deschutes County Market Road and (at a less frequent rate) Reed Market County
Road. I would not like to have to drive on gravel while using these roads.
13. The county has already made a commitment to maintain these roads. The roads created by LID
were paid for by the land owners adjacent to the paved roads. This option would eliminate a small
16
amount of maintenance on the local roads, but would not reduce any of the existing infrastructure
of the road department. When the economy comes around, the county will just want to change
their mind and rebuild those roads again. Keep the existing roads and reduce maintenance just to
a level of keeping the roads intact.
14. This may be allowed happen in a few remote locations, but is certainly not any kind of long term
strategy. It shouldn't be part of this survey.
15. They are already paved. Turn to gravel ...come on
16. This would not be friendly for visitors at all. We are trying to attract visitors, not dissuade them
from coming into our area.
Questionsicomments
1. Please provide a map identifying these roads
2. Need to vet the numbers more on this one...It will cost more than you think
3. 1 live in the city of Bend. Not sure if I want gravel roads.
4. county can only do so much
5. We need to slow down anyway and this would help force it.
6. It is simple, lay off all the duds you have working for us, sell 90% of the equipment and let private
industry bid streettroad maintenance and get it done right for a whole lot less $
7. A small number of people would bear the brunt of this.
8. create mechanism for small groups to support small sections
9. So turn my road that NEVER gets maintained EVER! to gravel and i still pay tax. UH NO
THANKS
10. Local road districts whose paved roads are being maintained by the county should have the
option of raising their tax rates to fund the maintenance themselves. The lightest traveled paved
roads should be considered for conversion to gravel while the more heavily traveled ones should
be continued to be maintained as paved roads.
11. 1 would need to see the quality of an existing gravel road to determine whether I would be OK
with it
12. Many of these roads are used by bicyclists.
13. These areas can band together and take over maint. of their own roads similar to private irrig.
ditches
14. It depends on the quality of the gravel that would be used.
15. Are dirt roads considered? With some additives, these can be made to be quite durable.
16. Once you "go down this road", so to speak, some areas will be more like the Appalachia of the
west than they already are. You can bet that the folks in rural areas with expensive properties
would not be the ones to lose their quality roads.
17. Cut your salaries
18. Our roads network is already overcapacity
19. 1 travel on a combination of paved and gravel roads to get to work; I would rather pay somehow
than go back to gravel. On some roads, it makes sense; the gravel feels better than rotten paving!
But I think people would feel an impact on their property values and you don't want to mess with
that. I don't think folks would go for this, not even out where I live. It seems to punish.
20. Depends on which roads we're talking about What are the criteria for determining which remain
paved and which return to gravel?
21. On some secondary roads
22. Country people like horses, Return all roads to gravel
23. 1 like the idea of chip sealing instead of overlaying.
24. Maintain only main roads.
25. There's some room for considering this on lightly traveled roads
171