HomeMy WebLinkAboutCET Funding Committee Draft Recommendations
DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 1 of 24
CET Local Dedicated Public Funding Subcommittee
DRAFT Recommendations
December 13, 2013
Background and Purpose
At their June 7 2013 meeting, the COIC Board developed a six‐member Subcommittee charged with
developing recommendations on local public funding options for Cascades East Transit. The
Subcommittee decided to expand to include a variety of regional leaders and to provide
recommendations regarding the following four questions:
Governance: Should transit continue to be operated at the regional scale by COIC, and/or should
a transit district or districts be formed?
Funding Geography: Should there be a single tri‐county local funding solution, or a combination
of funding solutions tailored to the service needs/priorities and willingness to pay of individual
communities?
Local Funding Tool: Considering the broad array of dedicated funding tools in use in Oregon,
what/which are appropriate for CET? If a fee or tax is recommended, what should the rate be?
Level of Service: Should the funding solution(s) be aimed at maintaining the current level of
service, a highly expanded level of service, or somewhere in between?
The Subcommittee met seven times from August through November 2013, and produced these draft
recommendations. See Appendix A for the full Committee meeting process/timeline and roster.
Assumptions
During the course of their work the CET Subcommittee developed a variety of Assumptions upon which
to guide their work:
Central Oregon’s local governments – cities and counties – and COIC are the key partners for
transit service delivery for two reasons:
1. Local governments are the only organizations that have a stake in the broad suite of
values served by transit – including addressing congestion and other community
mobility issues, meeting the needs of underserved populations, and promoting
community economic development and quality of life. Also, they are the best
positioned to understand the balance of community needs and priorities.
2. Central Oregon’s cities and counties formed COIC in part to provide services to meet
needs that are shared across the region in an integrated and efficient manner. COIC and
local governments should build on this foundation to work cooperatively and
proactively to identify transit service needs and funding opportunities. Once base level
service is achieved, additional focused partnerships can be developed to bolster service.
DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 2 of 24
“Focused partnership funding1 is not sufficient to fund “backbone” or “base‐level” transit service
because partners will desire to fund service elements that provide direct benefits to them and
not the system as a whole. These types of partnerships are therefore most useful in developing
additional services over and above base service in specific areas and/or for individual clientele.
However, partnerships will enhance support for any future funding measures because they a)
demonstrate support for transit and b) represent funding participation by entities that may not
directly contribute to public funding tools like a property tax (e.g. entities such as schools,
government agencies and hospitals that do not pay property taxes).
Fare increases will help pay for transit and are a potential policy choice, but will not provide a
basis for transit funding because transit provides public goods above and beyond the benefits to
individual riders, most of whom cannot afford the full cost of a ride.
Due to the Assumptions listed above, for transit to be viable now and into the future will require
a new source of dedicated local public revenue. In Oregon, options include passage of a
property tax, payroll tax, local sales tax, or city utility fee.
The results of the September 2013 survey (see Appendix B for a summary of the survey
findings), indicate that voters are unlikely to approve a new transit taxing measure in the next 1
to 3 or 5 years. The CET local public funding strategy requires a multi‐phased approach, with
short‐term and long‐term elements. Short‐term elements will, in part, be aimed at developing
greater public awareness of the benefits and value of transit in order to improve voter
willingness to pay for it.
Recommendation Highlights
The Funding Committee has developed recommendations related to the original four questions as well
as additional recommendations regarding Partnerships and Outreach and Engagement. The full list of
recommendations, organized into Goals and Actions, are provided in the following section.
Multi‐phased Approach
The survey results demonstrate that voters have yet to be convinced of the value of funding transit
through a taxing measure. Therefore, the Funding Committee has recommended that COIC and its
partners pursue a multi‐phased approach to public funding including short‐term (0 to 3 years) and long‐
term (3‐5+ years) elements.
Phase One (short term) elements:
Develop agreements with cities and counties to define needed service levels and long‐term
funding methods that are tied to the actual cost of providing a base level of service (Scenario B)
in each community and across the region.2
Build COIC’s outreach and engagement capacity to increase public awareness of and support for
the CET system and to develop focused partnerships with partner organizations and agencies .
1 “Focused partnership funding” is defined as contractual funding from individual businesses, state or federal
agencies, or other organizations to improve service in specific areas or for specific interests or groups of clients.
2 “Scenario B” is defined as the current number of service hours provided in each community plus a) conversion to
fixed route in Redmond and flex routes in Madras and Prineville; and b) additional necessary components (that
aren’t currently funded) such as planning, outreach, and capital replacement. This service level is also referred to
as “base level” and is defined in Appendix C.
DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 3 of 24
Phase Two (long term) elements:
Develop a dedicated, local, publicly‐funded tool to achieve “Scenario B” service levels across the
region.
The funding tool will replace existing funding sources in areas that desire Scenario B service
levels. In areas that desire Scenario C (see Appendix C) services, any new revenue would
augment existing funding in order to provide this higher level of service.
Governance and Geography
In Oregon, certain funding tools are only available to specific governance approaches (e.g. property
taxes are only available for transportation districts). The Committee recommends the following:
Maintain a regionally‐based transit system with regional governance.
Pursue legislative changes to allow COIC to levy a property tax (subject to voter approval) for
transit operations.
Short‐term, maintain governance and operations with COIC.
Long‐term, maintain regional governance and ensure that the governance model supports the
chosen funding tool(s).
Service Level
A key question for the Committee has been the vision for transit service ‐ specifically, should transit be
very modest and designed to only meet the needs of transit‐dependent riders, or should it be more
robust and meet broader community goals? The Committee considered various service levels (see
Appendix C), and recommends the following:
At a minimum, provide a base level of service (Scenario B) across the region within the short‐
term time frame.
Aspire to a robust (Scenario C) service level across the region over the long‐term.
Partnerships
Partnerships are viewed as a key means to stabilize funding for base level of service, improve transit
service over base levels, demonstrate support, and to ensure that all beneficiaries of transit are
contributing. As stated above, there is a distinction between core local government partners and
focused partnerships with other entities. The Committee recommends the following:
COIC will develop formal partnerships with cities and counties for local funding to provide base
level of service (scenario B) in communities throughout the region.
COIC will pursue focused partnerships to meet the organizations and agencies’ specific
transportation needs, augment base levels of service, and demonstrate the value of transit. Key
partnership opportunities include education, tourism, social service, and health care sectors.
Partnerships should span multiple years, be stable, and involve extensive outreach/
communication and the option for modifications to ensure that services are meeting needs.
Outreach and Engagement
DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 4 of 24
A lack of marketing and outreach/engagement was identified as a key weakness for Cascades East
Transit’s ability to develop public support for transit and partnerships. The Committee recommends the
following:
Significantly bolster COIC/CET’s outreach/engagement and marketing capacity to raise community
awareness of transit, engage key partners, leverage resources, and build support for transit service
and funding.
Build a strong, diverse coalition of transit supporters with a coordinated message.
Local Dedicated Public Funding Tool
The key to transit sustainability in Central Oregon is the eventual development of a dedicated local
public funding tool.
Principles with which to analyze local public funding options:
The local dedicated public funding tool should support Scenario B service levels (see footnote 3
and Appendix C) throughout the region.
Individual communities and partner organizations can “buy up” service over Scenario B with
increased contributions.
All parts of the region should contribute to transit service.
The local dedicated public funding tool(s) should be consistent with the desire to maintain
ongoing regional governance.
The local dedicated public funding plan should be equitable in that those organizations that
particularly benefit from transit should help pay for it.
The Committee recommends the following:
Over the short‐term, develop partnerships with local governments to collectively develop local
funding to achieve a sustainable base level of service (“Scenario B”) throughout the region. These
partnerships could be formalized in the form of Agreements specifying important issues such as
funding, service levels, route and hub locations, decision‐making roles, and monitoring and
performance expectations.
Focus short‐term goals and actions towards the passage of a dedicated local public funding tool(s) in
the long term. See Appendix D for a list and analysis of the available tools.
DR
A
F
T
CE
T
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pa
g
e
5 of 24
Fu
l
l
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Sh
o
r
t
Te
r
m
(1
to
5 Ye
a
r
s
)
Lo
n
g
Te
r
m
(5
Ye
a
r
s
+)
Go
v
e
r
n
a
n
c
e
an
d
Ge
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
Go
a
l
s
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
a re
g
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
‐ba
s
e
d
sy
s
t
e
m
du
e
to
va
l
u
e
of
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
ec
o
n
o
m
i
e
s
of
sc
a
l
e
,
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
to
sm
a
l
l
e
r
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
,
an
d
co
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
/
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
.
o
Wo
r
k
wi
t
h
lo
c
a
l
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
to
en
s
u
r
e
ac
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
of
se
r
v
i
c
e
an
d
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
De
v
e
l
o
p
to
o
l
s
fo
r
lo
c
a
l
as
we
l
l
as
re
g
i
o
n
‐sc
a
l
e
fu
n
d
i
n
g
.
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
go
v
e
r
n
a
n
c
e
at
CO
I
C
.
Pu
r
s
u
e
OR
S
19
0
.
0
8
3
le
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
ch
a
n
g
e
s
to
al
l
o
w
tr
a
n
s
i
t
fu
n
d
i
n
g
in
20
1
4
or
20
1
5
Se
s
s
i
o
n
.
o
Al
a
n
Un
g
e
r
/
A
O
C
le
a
d
i
n
g
,
OR
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
is
en
g
a
g
e
d
.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
co
m
b
i
n
i
n
g
Tr
i
p
97
go
v
e
r
n
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
tr
a
n
s
i
t
go
v
e
r
n
a
n
c
e
to
me
e
t
br
o
a
d
e
r
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
go
a
l
s
o
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
Tr
i
p
97
th
r
o
u
g
h
20
1
4
‐15
Go
a
l
s
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
‐based
go
v
e
r
n
a
n
c
e
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
As
s
u
r
e
go
v
e
r
n
a
n
c
e
model is
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
for the region and
su
p
p
o
r
t
s
th
e
chosen funding
me
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
Le
v
e
l
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Go
a
l
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a ba
s
i
c
le
v
e
l
of
se
r
v
i
c
e
(“
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
B”
,
de
f
i
n
e
d
in
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
C)
to
ev
e
r
y
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
3 in
th
e
re
g
i
o
n
,
wi
t
h
ac
t
u
a
l
se
r
v
i
c
e
ta
i
l
o
r
e
d
to
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
ne
e
d
s
.
Im
p
r
o
v
e
le
v
e
l
of
se
r
v
i
c
e
ab
o
v
e
th
e
ba
s
e
le
v
e
l
to
at
t
r
a
c
t
ch
o
i
c
e
ri
d
e
r
s
an
d
en
a
b
l
e
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
wh
e
r
e
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
Fo
c
u
s
se
r
v
i
c
e
on
ar
e
a
s
wi
t
h
hi
g
h
e
s
t
de
m
a
n
d
an
d
ne
e
d
.
En
s
u
r
e
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
of
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
sy
s
t
e
m
of
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
co
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
sh
u
t
t
l
e
s
.
Cu
s
t
o
m
i
z
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
to
me
e
t
de
m
a
n
d
;
ut
i
l
i
z
e
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
mo
b
i
l
i
t
y
op
t
i
o
n
s
(i
.
e
.
no
t
ju
s
t
bu
s
e
s
,
bu
t
va
n
po
o
l
s
an
d
ot
h
e
r
to
o
l
s
)
.
Go
a
l
s
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
levels to attract
ch
o
i
c
e
ri
d
e
r
s
and partnerships.
De
v
e
l
o
p
a ro
b
u
s
t
regional system
(e
.
g
.
“S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
C”, defined in
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
C)
.
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
Se
e
De
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
Public Funding Tools
an
d
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
section
3 “C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
”
is
de
f
i
n
e
d
pr
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
as
th
e
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Ci
t
i
e
s
in
th
e
re
g
i
o
n
.
Un
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
ar
e
a
s
th
a
t
ca
n
de
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
ne
e
d
an
d
mo
b
i
l
i
z
e
local funding would
al
s
o
be
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
fo
r
se
r
v
i
c
e
,
as
s
u
m
i
n
g
th
a
t
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
s
in
t
o
ne
w
ar
e
a
s
co
u
l
d
be
ef
f
e
c
t
e
d
wi
t
h
o
u
t
ca
u
s
i
n
g
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
to
fa
l
l
be
l
o
w
“S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
B” levels elsewhere.
DR
A
F
T
CE
T
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pa
g
e
6 of 24
Sh
o
r
t
Te
r
m
(1
to
5 Ye
a
r
s
)
Lo
n
g
Te
r
m
(5
Ye
a
r
s
+)
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
ID
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
to
ex
p
a
n
d
se
r
v
i
c
e
in
Be
n
d
in
th
e
ne
a
r
te
r
m
.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
mo
r
e
ro
b
u
s
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
th
a
n
co
n
t
e
m
p
l
a
t
e
d
in
th
e
Be
n
d
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Pl
a
n
to
be
t
t
e
r
se
r
v
e
ne
e
d
s
in
re
l
e
v
a
n
t
gr
o
w
t
h
ar
e
a
s
(e
.
g
.
OS
U
,
CO
C
C
,
St
.
Ch
a
r
l
e
s
,
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
,
et
c
.
)
o
Wo
r
k
wi
t
h
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Be
n
d
an
d
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
on
th
e
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
MM
A
an
d
OS
U
‐CC
TG
M
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
to
ID
tr
a
n
s
i
t
ne
e
d
s
/
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
o
En
g
a
g
e
OS
U
‐CC
on
th
e
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ta
s
k
Fo
r
c
e
to
ID
tr
a
n
s
i
t
ne
e
d
s
/
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
Wo
r
k
cl
o
s
e
l
y
wi
t
h
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
to
ID
se
r
v
i
c
e
ne
e
d
s
an
d
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
(s
e
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
se
c
t
i
o
n
be
l
o
w
)
in
bo
t
h
lo
c
a
l
an
d
in
t
e
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
Wo
r
k
wi
t
h
ci
t
i
e
s
to
de
v
e
l
o
p
ov
e
r
a
r
c
h
i
n
g
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
se
r
v
i
c
e
le
v
e
l
,
fu
n
d
i
n
g
,
et
c
.
(s
e
e
De
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
Lo
c
a
l
Pu
b
l
i
c
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
To
o
l
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
)
.
o
Wo
r
k
wi
t
h
Re
d
m
o
n
d
,
Pr
i
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
,
an
d
Ma
d
r
a
s
to
de
v
e
l
o
p
en
h
a
n
c
e
d
lo
c
a
l
fu
n
d
i
n
g
to
su
p
p
o
r
t
co
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
fr
o
m
DA
R
to
fi
x
e
d
or
fl
e
x
ro
u
t
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
.
If
un
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
,
do
no
t
co
n
v
e
r
t
.
Be
t
t
e
r
ID
ne
e
d
s
of
ke
y
se
c
t
o
r
s
:
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
to
u
r
i
s
m
,
so
c
i
a
l
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
he
a
l
t
h
ca
r
e
,
an
d
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
in
ge
n
e
r
a
l
.
“F
o
c
u
s
e
d
”
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
Go
a
l
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
“w
i
n
‐wi
n
”
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
wi
t
h
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
,
or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
an
d
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
to
st
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
tr
a
n
s
i
t
fu
n
d
i
n
g
an
d
ex
p
a
n
d
se
r
v
i
c
e
de
l
i
v
e
r
y
wh
e
r
e
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
sh
o
u
l
d
sp
a
n
mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
ye
a
r
s
,
be
st
a
b
l
e
,
an
d
in
v
o
l
v
e
on
g
o
i
n
g
co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
th
e
op
t
i
o
n
fo
r
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
to
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
ar
e
me
e
t
i
n
g
ne
e
d
s
.
De
v
e
l
o
p
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
to
le
v
e
r
a
g
e
gr
e
a
t
e
r
pu
b
l
i
c
su
p
p
o
r
t
.
Le
v
e
r
a
g
e
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
“e
a
r
l
y
ad
o
p
t
e
r
s
”
to
br
i
n
g
in
ne
w
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
.
Bu
i
l
d
a br
o
a
d
vi
s
i
o
n
of
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
an
d
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
tr
a
n
s
i
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
vo
l
u
n
t
a
r
y
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
or
in
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
in
th
e
sy
s
t
e
m
by
th
o
s
e
wh
o
th
r
o
u
g
h
no
r
m
a
l
ta
x
i
n
g
me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
mi
g
h
t
be
ex
e
m
p
t
fr
o
m
Go
a
l
s
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
are used to support
lo
c
a
l
de
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
funding efforts and
to
im
p
r
o
v
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
levels over what
lo
c
a
l
de
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
public funding can
pr
o
v
i
d
e
.
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
DR
A
F
T
CE
T
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pa
g
e
7 of 24
Sh
o
r
t
Te
r
m
(1
to
5 Ye
a
r
s
)
Lo
n
g
Te
r
m
(5
Ye
a
r
s
+)
di
r
e
c
t
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
.
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
Fu
n
d
ra
i
s
e
wi
t
h
fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
st
a
t
e
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
,
an
d
ot
h
e
r
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
fo
r
CO
I
C
to
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
/
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
an
d
en
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
po
s
i
t
i
o
n
Wo
r
k
wi
t
h
re
l
e
v
a
n
t
ke
y
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
to
su
p
p
o
r
t
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
s
– ad
ho
c
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
an
d
Ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
Te
a
m
Pu
r
s
u
e
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
/
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
:
CO
C
C
,
OS
U
‐CC
,
To
u
r
i
s
m
/
U
S
F
S
,
an
d
St
.
Ch
a
r
l
e
s
/
C
C
O
/
h
e
a
l
t
h
ca
r
e
.
Pu
r
s
u
e
th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
to
de
v
e
l
o
p
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
:
o
Wo
r
k
wi
t
h
ci
t
i
e
s
wi
t
h
fi
x
e
d
ro
u
t
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
cr
e
d
i
t
s
to
im
p
a
c
t
fe
e
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
(e
.
g
.
pa
r
k
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
)
in
ex
c
h
a
n
g
e
fo
r
he
l
p
i
n
g
to
fu
n
d
se
r
v
i
c
e
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
/
o
r
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
in
li
e
u
of
ot
h
e
r
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Ut
i
l
i
z
e
tr
a
n
s
i
t
tr
i
p
es
t
i
m
a
t
o
r
to
o
l
to
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
o
CO
C
C
an
d
OS
U
‐CC
st
u
d
e
n
t
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
fe
e
s
(s
t
u
d
e
n
t
pa
s
s
pr
o
g
r
a
m
)
.
o
ID
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
to
re
d
u
c
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
co
s
t
s
(e
.
g
.
mi
l
e
a
g
e
re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
fo
r
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
)
or
ne
w
co
s
t
s
(e
.
g
.
ne
w
pa
r
k
i
n
g
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
)
.
o
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
of
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
to
fr
a
m
e
an
d
po
o
l
lo
c
a
l
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
.
o
Le
v
e
r
a
g
e
ne
e
d
fo
r
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
tr
a
n
s
i
t
sy
s
t
e
m
to
su
p
p
o
r
t
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
OR
re
s
i
l
i
e
n
c
y
in
fa
c
e
of
Ca
s
c
a
d
i
a
Su
b
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Zo
n
e
ea
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
Ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
/
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
an
d
Ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
Go
a
l
s
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
bo
l
s
t
e
r
CO
I
C
/
C
E
T
’
s
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
/
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
an
d
ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
to
ra
i
s
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
aw
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
of
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
en
g
a
g
e
ke
y
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
,
le
v
e
r
a
g
e
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
an
d
bu
i
l
d
su
p
p
o
r
t
fo
r
tr
a
n
s
i
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
an
d
fu
n
d
i
n
g
.
Bu
i
l
d
a st
r
o
n
g
,
di
v
e
r
s
e
co
a
l
i
t
i
o
n
of
tr
a
n
s
i
t
su
p
p
o
r
t
e
r
s
Em
p
o
w
e
r
na
t
u
r
a
l
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
to
sp
e
a
k
on
be
h
a
l
f
of
tr
a
n
s
i
t
wi
t
h
Go
a
l
s
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
hi
g
h
level of
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
/
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
and
ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
Bu
i
l
d
PA
C
fu
n
d
i
n
g
campaign
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
DR
A
F
T
CE
T
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pa
g
e
8 of 24
Sh
o
r
t
Te
r
m
(1
to
5 Ye
a
r
s
)
Lo
n
g
Te
r
m
(5
Ye
a
r
s
+)
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
me
s
s
a
g
i
n
g
.
En
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
ri
d
e
r
s
an
d
ot
h
e
r
us
e
r
s
(e
.
g
.
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
th
a
t
re
l
y
on
tr
a
n
s
i
t
)
kn
o
w
ab
o
u
t
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
sy
s
t
e
m
ch
a
n
g
e
s
an
d
ar
e
in
v
o
l
v
e
d
in
se
r
v
i
c
e
de
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
an
d
pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
.
Cr
e
a
t
e
a sh
a
r
e
d
Vi
s
i
o
n
of
tr
a
n
s
i
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
in
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Or
e
g
o
n
.
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
Wo
r
k
wi
t
h
th
e
Be
n
d
MP
O
to
bu
i
l
d
a tr
a
n
s
i
t
Vi
s
i
o
n
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Pl
a
n
s
an
d
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
wo
r
k
wi
t
h
st
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
.
Wo
r
k
wi
t
h
ke
y
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
to
st
e
e
r
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
an
d
en
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
an
d
me
s
s
a
g
i
n
g
– Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
an
d
Ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
Te
a
m
De
v
e
l
o
p
a de
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
/
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
an
d
ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
po
s
i
t
i
o
n
at
CO
I
C
/
C
E
T
(i
n
ta
n
d
e
m
wi
t
h
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
po
s
i
t
i
o
n
ab
o
v
e
)
Wo
r
k
wi
t
h
Co
m
m
u
t
e
Op
t
i
o
n
s
to
de
v
e
l
o
p
an
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
an
in
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
pl
a
n
.
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
th
e
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
Te
a
m
ab
o
u
t
pr
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
su
p
p
o
r
t
fo
r
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
/
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
an
d
ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
ef
f
o
r
t
s
vi
a
st
a
t
e
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
,
fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
an
d
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
ot
h
e
r
so
u
r
c
e
s
.
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
th
e
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
Ca
r
e
Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
ab
o
u
t
fu
n
d
i
n
g
to
pr
o
m
o
t
e
tr
a
n
s
i
t
as
ac
t
i
v
e
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
ac
c
e
s
s
to
he
a
l
t
h
ca
r
e
.
Re
s
e
a
r
c
h
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
fo
r
Me
y
e
r
Me
m
o
r
i
a
l
Tr
u
s
t
an
d
Or
e
g
o
n
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
fu
n
d
i
n
g
En
g
a
g
e
gr
a
s
s
r
o
o
t
s
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
(e
.
g
.
RE
A
L
M
S
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
se
n
i
o
r
ci
t
i
z
e
n
s
,
dr
i
v
e
r
s
,
et
c
.
)
to
he
l
p
te
l
l
th
e
st
o
r
y
of
tr
a
n
s
i
t
.
Bu
i
l
d
a ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
ca
m
p
a
i
g
n
th
a
t
fo
c
u
s
e
s
on
th
e
va
l
u
e
s
mo
s
t
ap
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
e
d
by
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Or
e
g
o
n
i
a
n
s
– he
l
p
s
th
e
ec
o
n
o
m
y
,
he
l
p
s
pe
o
p
l
e
in
ne
e
d
,
su
p
p
o
r
t
s
go
a
l
s
su
c
h
as
OS
U
‐CC
.
Br
i
n
g
ou
t
c
o
m
e
s
of
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
to
lo
c
a
l
go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
to
en
g
a
g
e
th
e
m
mo
r
e
de
e
p
l
y
in
fu
n
d
i
n
g
an
d
su
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
tr
a
n
s
i
t
;
en
g
a
g
e
in
on
g
o
i
n
g
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
/
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
ci
t
i
e
s
an
d
co
u
n
t
i
e
s
.
Br
i
n
g
to
Ad
F
e
d
ne
x
t
ye
a
r
.
Ex
p
a
n
d
so
c
i
a
l
me
d
i
a
pr
e
s
e
n
c
e
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
Ha
v
e
tr
a
n
s
i
t
“b
e
ev
e
r
y
w
h
e
r
e
”
(p
i
g
g
y
b
a
c
k
on
me
e
t
i
n
g
s
,
et
c
.
)
DR
A
F
T
CE
T
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pa
g
e
9 of 24
Sh
o
r
t
Te
r
m
(1
to
5 Ye
a
r
s
)
Lo
n
g
Te
r
m
(5
Ye
a
r
s
+)
De
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
Lo
c
a
l
Pu
b
l
i
c
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
To
o
l
s
Go
a
l
s
Ac
h
i
e
v
e
re
l
i
a
b
l
e
pu
b
l
i
c
fu
n
d
i
n
g
to
ac
h
i
e
v
e
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
B se
r
v
i
c
e
le
v
e
l
s
ac
r
o
s
s
th
e
re
g
i
o
n
.
Ac
h
i
e
v
e
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
C se
r
v
i
c
e
le
v
e
l
s
in
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
th
a
t
wi
s
h
to
bu
y
up
se
r
v
i
c
e
an
d
/
o
r
in
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
ar
e
a
s
wi
t
h
i
n
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
wi
t
h
hi
g
h
e
r
ne
e
d
s
an
d
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(e
.
g
.
se
r
v
i
c
e
to
OS
U
‐CC
an
d
CO
C
C
an
d
/
o
r
ot
h
e
r
ar
e
a
s
)
En
g
a
g
e
lo
c
a
l
Ci
t
i
e
s
an
d
Co
u
n
t
i
e
s
in
tr
a
n
s
i
t
fu
n
d
i
n
g
an
d
fu
n
d
i
n
g
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
.
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
Im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
be
g
i
n
a pr
o
c
e
s
s
to
de
v
e
l
o
p
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
wi
t
h
lo
c
a
l
ci
t
i
e
s
to
co
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
de
v
e
l
o
p
lo
c
a
l
fu
n
d
i
n
g
to
ac
h
i
e
v
e
a su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
ba
s
e
le
v
e
l
of
se
r
v
i
c
e
(“
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
B”
)
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
th
e
re
g
i
o
n
.
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
‐
le
v
e
l
fu
n
d
i
n
g
wi
l
l
be
ba
s
e
d
up
o
n
ac
t
u
a
l
co
s
t
s
fo
r
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
B an
d
lo
c
a
l
ma
t
c
h
ne
e
d
s
.
Th
e
s
e
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
co
u
l
d
be
fo
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
in
th
e
fo
r
m
of
Ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
sp
e
c
i
f
y
i
n
g
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
is
s
u
e
s
su
c
h
as
fu
n
d
i
n
g
,
se
r
v
i
c
e
le
v
e
l
s
,
ro
u
t
e
an
d
hu
b
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
de
c
i
s
i
o
n
‐ma
k
i
n
g
ro
l
e
s
,
an
d
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
an
d
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
ex
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
o
St
a
r
t
wi
t
h
Be
n
d
an
d
Re
d
m
o
n
d
,
as
th
e
s
e
ar
e
th
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
wi
t
h
th
e
gr
e
a
t
e
s
t
ne
e
d
fo
r
tr
a
n
s
i
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
ar
e
th
e
mo
s
t
‐
de
s
i
r
e
d
de
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
ri
d
e
r
s
,
an
d
th
e
gr
e
a
t
e
s
t
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
Br
o
k
e
r
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
th
a
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
ot
h
e
r
so
u
r
c
e
s
of
fu
n
d
i
n
g
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
lo
c
a
l
fu
n
d
i
n
g
so
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
ne
w
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
Go
a
l
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
a de
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
,
local, publicly ‐
fu
n
d
e
d
to
o
l
(
s
)
to achieve “Scenario
B”
se
r
v
i
c
e
le
v
e
l
s
across the region by
20
1
8
/
1
9
.
Th
e
fu
n
d
i
n
g
tool will replace existing
fu
n
d
i
n
g
so
u
r
c
e
s
in areas that desire
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
B se
r
v
i
c
e
levels. In areas
th
a
t
de
s
i
r
e
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
C services, it
wo
u
l
d
au
g
m
e
n
t
existing funding to
“b
u
y
up
”
to
the desired service level.
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
No
t
e
:
Al
l
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
listed elsewhere in this
ta
b
l
e
ar
e
or
i
e
n
t
e
d
towards the above
go
a
l
.
Ba
s
e
d
on
fu
t
u
r
e
survey findings and
ot
h
e
r
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
,
ID the preferred
pu
b
l
i
c
fu
n
d
i
n
g
tool(s) for the region
an
d
ea
c
h
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
(property tax,
pa
y
r
o
l
l
ta
x
,
sa
l
e
s
tax, and/or utility
fe
e
)
.
Bu
i
l
d
a ca
m
p
a
i
g
n
and develop public
fu
n
d
i
n
g
to
o
l
.
APPENDICES
DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 10 of 24
Appendices
A. CET Funding Committee Roster and Meeting Process/Timeline
B. Summary September 2013 Transit Survey Findings
C. Transit Service Level Scenarios and High‐Level Costs
D. Available Dedicated Local Public Funding Tools for Transit
E. Transit Funding Governance Options
APPENDIX A
DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 11 of 24
CET Funding Committee Process and Timeline
Updated: December 13, 2013
Committee Purpose: To develop recommendations for the COIC Board on four primary questions:
Governance: Should transit continue to be operated at the regional scale by COIC, and/or should a
transit district or districts be formed?
Funding Geography: Should there be a single tri-county local funding solution, or a combination of
funding solutions tailored to the service needs/priorities and willingness to pay of individual
communities?
Local Funding Tool: Considering the broad array of dedicated funding tools in use in Oregon,
what/which are appropriate for CET? If a fee or tax is recommended, what should the rate be?
Level of Service: Should the funding solution(s) be aimed at maintaining the current level of service, a
highly expanded level of service, or somewhere in between?
Meeting Date Meeting Discussion Topics/Goals
Meeting #1 – August 16
Committee Orientation
and CET Overview
Discuss committee goals, process and timeline
Orient participants to CET funding framework; Work to date on system
vision, planning, and sustainable system funding concepts
High level review of governance options
High level review of funding mechanism options
Determine CET Committee need for additional information, data, research
Meeting #2 – September 6
Data and Info on Budget
and Funding Mechanisms
Review of CET service level/cost scenarios
Detailed review range of transit system funding mechanism options
Determine CET Committee need for additional information, data, research,
etc.
Meeting #3 – September 20
Data and Info on
Governance
Detailed review range of options for transit system governance
Review preliminary outcomes of regional public phone survey
Determine CET Committee need for additional information, data, research,
etc.
Meeting #4 – October 4
Regional Options
Discussion of geographic governance options
Review final survey outcomes and findings/meet with consultant firm
Determine CET Committee need for additional information, data, research,
etc.
Meeting #5 – October 18
Facilitated Discussion –
CET Sustainability
Concepts
Facilitated Committee discussion regarding options for a sustainable
funding approach. Preliminary identification of recommendations.
Determine CET Committee need for additional information, data, research,
etc.
Meeting #6 – November 1
Develop Draft/Preliminary
Recommendations
Develop draft recommendations on sustainable funding approach
Meeting #7 – November 15
Develop Draft/Preliminary
Recommendations
Develop draft recommendations on sustainable funding approach
Achieve concurrence on recommendations to COIC Board
November 15 – January 2014
Outreach
Provide draft recommendations to COIC Board, city councils, County
boards of commissioners, and stakeholders; solicit comment and feedback.
Meeting #8 – TBD
Develop Revised/Final
Recommendations
Based on COIC Board questions and feedback, revise/refine
recommendations
Discuss implementation concepts and next steps
Achieve concurrence on revised recommendations to COIC Board
COIC Board Meeting –
February 6, 2014
Acceptance of
Recommendations
COIC Board accepts final recommendations
COIC Board approves sustainable funding plan for CET system
APPENDIX A
DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 12 of 24
COIC –CET Funding Committee Roster
COIC Board Member Appointees
Alan Unger, Deschutes County Commissioner
541‐388‐6569
Alan.Unger@deschutes.org
Richard Ladeby, Madras City Council
503‐930‐7093
rladeby@ci.madras.or.us
Jason Carr, Prineville City Council
541‐233‐9692
jcarr@cityofprineville.com
Chris Bellusci, Private Sector
541‐550‐0745
cbellusci@geoengineers.com
Victor Chudowsky, Bend City Council
541‐749‐0085
vchudowsky@ci.bend.or.us
Jim Wilson, Private Sector
541‐410‐7746
brassrng@gmail.com
Regional Appointees
Scott Cooper, Executive Director
NeighborImpact
541‐548‐2380 ext102
scottc@neighborimpact.org
Jeff Monson, Executive Director
Commute Options
541‐330‐2647
jeff@commuteoptions.org
George Endicott, Mayor
City of Redmond
541‐504‐2000
George.Endicott@ci.redmond.or.us
Pamela Norr, Executive Director
Central Oregon Council on Aging
541‐678‐5483
pnorr@councilonaging.org
Ken Fahlgren, Commissioner
Crook County
541‐447‐6555
ken.fahlgren@co.crook.or.us
Ron Parsons, Program Manager
Oregon Department of Human Services
541‐504‐1320 ext 438
Ron.Parsons@state.or.us
Gary Farnsworth, Area Manager
Oregon Dept. of Transportation
541‐388‐6071
Gary.C.FARNSWORTH@odot.state.or.us
Dave Rathbun, President and General Manager
Mt. Bachelor
541‐382‐4224
drathbun@mtbachelor.com
Wendy Holzman, Councilor
City of Sisters
541‐549‐8558
WHolzman@ci.sisters.or.us
Mike Riley, Executive Director
Environmental Center
541‐385‐6908 x 19
mike@envirocenter.org
Eric King, City Manager
City of Bend
541‐388‐5505
eking@bendoregon.gov
Kirk Schueler, Chief Administrative Officer
St. Charles Health System
541‐706‐6958
keschueler@stcharleshealthcare.org
Matt McCoy, Vice President for Administration
Central Oregon Community College
541‐383‐7704
mmcccoy@cocc.edu
Matt Shinderman, Natural Resources
OSU Cascades
541‐322‐3159
Matt.Shinderman@osucascades.edu
COIC Staff
Andrew Spreadborough, Executive Director
(541) 504‐3306
aspreadborough@coic.org
Karen Friend, Deputy Director/CET Manager
(541) 548‐9543
kfriend@coic.org
Scott Aycock, Community Development Mgr.
(541) 548‐9523
scotta@coic.org
Tamara Geiger, Program Assistant
(541) 548‐9527
tgeiger@coic.org
APPENDIX B
DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 13 of 24
September 27, 2013 TO: Scott Aycock and Karen
Friend, COIC FROM: Robin Kreger, Moore Information
RE: Central Oregon Voters and Transportation Issues
Methodology
A total of 1,150 live telephone interviews were conducted among representative samples of
voters in four Central Oregon cities, including: N=400 interviews in Bend; N=400 in
Redmond; N=200 in Prineville and N=150 in Madras.
The region-wide N=1,150 interviews were weighted to actual voter population of the four
city area. Landline and cell phone interviews were conducted September 12-17, 2013.
The sampling error associated with each survey follows: Plus
or minus 3% at the 95% confidence level for N=1,150.
Plus or minus 5% at the 95% confidence level for N=400.
Plus or minus 7% at the 95% confidence level for N=200. Plus
or minus 8% at the 95% confidence level for N=150.
Summary and Highlights
Overview
The transportation funding measures tested in these surveys are unlikely to pass in the
Central Oregon region, or in any of the four individual cities, as economic factors weigh
heavily on voters’ minds and lack of public transportation is not a salient issue.
• Overall, the current issue priority region-wide is “creating jobs” (the top issue for
54%), distantly followed by “improving public education” (20%). “Improving public
transportation” is the most important issue for just 7% of respondents in the region.
• It is important to note that a significant percentage of voters don’t know how to rate
their area’s public transportation system, with 30% having no opinion region-wide
(28% no opinion in Bend, 36% Redmond, 34% Prineville and 31% Madras).
• Further, lack of public transportation is not a leading issue for respondents region-
wide, nor is it in any of the four cities.
• The fact that most voters are not concerned about “lack of public transportation” in
their transportation routines as well as the high percentage of voters who currently
have no opinion about public transportation in their own community is reflected in
the lack of enthusiasm for the funding measures tested in the survey.
2130 SW Jefferson St. Ste. 200
Portland, OR 97201
428 4th St., Ste. 8
Annapolis, MD 21403 1821 South Ave West, Ste. 406
Missoula, MT 59801
503.221.3100 410.216.9856 406.317.1662
APPENDIX B
DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 14 of 24
Funding Options
When given the chance to choose a preferred funding option for public transportation
expansion and improvements, fully 52% of the region’s voters prefer no tax or fee increases
(this includes 33% who prefer “re-allocation of funds from programs and services” paid for
by their city’s general fund and 18% who prefer no increase).
Looking specifically at a potential property tax increase, the survey tested two funding
levels; a 35-cent per thousand/assessed value and a 20-cent option. Neither property tax
option would be approved in an election held today, and the less expensive option would
also face an uphill battle to pass in the near future, at least while economic issues are
foremost on voters’ minds and public transportation is not perceived as a major problem.
The survey also explored a potential utility fee option to fund transportation, described to
respondents as a “$2.75 per month utility fee, totaling $33 per year.” This funding option is
unpopular and generates majority opposition region-wide and among voters in all cities.
Messaging and Moving Forward
The most effective message in generating support for a property tax increase for public
transportation overall is:
“Improving public transit in [CITY] will provide services for area residents who are disabled or
elderly or are lower income who depend on transit service.”
This message is rated “very” important in transit funding voting decisions by more than
50% of all voters, region-wide and by city. This message has potential to be leveraged in
future COIC communications, including potential marketing and outreach efforts.
Further, region-wide, voters are more likely to agree that public transportation should be
“substantial,” rather than “minimal.”
“Public transportation in the [CITY] area should be substantial. Public transportation is an
important element for encouraging the area’s economic growth, and plays an important part
in reducing traffic congestion and our area’s environmental impact.”
COIC communications should leverage the following groups’ support for “substantial” public
transportation into willingness to vote for funding measures for public transit: Bend
residents, women, voters age 18-64, Democrats, Independents, voters who have voted in
three or fewer of the last four elections and public transit supporters.
More survey details follow.
Most Important Issue
Overall, the current issue priority region-wide is “creating jobs” (the top issue for 54%),
distantly followed by “improving public education” (20%). “Improving public transportation”
is the most important issue for just 7% of respondents in the region. Additional responses
include “reducing crime” (6%) and “protecting the environment” (5%). Another 5% say
“something else” is the most important issue and 3% have no opinion. Creating jobs is the
current issue priority among all subgroups region-wide.
“Creating jobs” is the most important issue among voters in all four cities and
“improving public transportation” is not a top priority anywhere (7% say improving
public transportation is most important in Bend, 7% in Redmond, 2% in Prineville
and 6% in Madras).
APPENDIX B
DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 15 of 24
Transportation Issues
Fully 79% of voters believe that their area’s public transportation system (identified primarily
as Cascades East Transit bus system) is important, including 47% who say it is
“very” important. Another 13% say it is “not very important.” Just 5% say it is “not
important at all” and 3% have no opinion. There is majority agreement among all voter
subgroups in the region that the area’s public transportation system is important.
These results are consistent across all cities, with wide majorities considering the
public transportation system important (81% important in Bend, 70% Redmond,
78% Prineville, 82% Madras).
When it comes to rating their area’s public transportation system on a scale from excellent to
poor, voters in the region are not impressed, with just 14% giving an “excellent/above
average” rating, 33% saying “average” and 23% “below average/poor.” Importantly, a
significant percentage of voters don’t know enough to rate their area’s public transportation
system, with 30% having no opinion region-wide. Subgroups least likely to know enough
about the transportation system to have an opinion include: seniors, Redmond residents,
voters who say public transportation is not important and voters who are undecided on a
potential property tax increase and potential utility fee.
Sentiment is consistent across all cities, with no more than 16% giving a combined
“excellent/above average” rating (15% excellent/above average in Bend, 11%
Redmond, 12% Prineville, 16% Madras). And similarly, significant percentages of
voters in each city don’t know enough about the system to have an opinion (28% no
opinion in Bend, 36% Redmond, 34% Prineville and 31% Madras).
From a personal standpoint, the two biggest problems voters have when traveling from one
place to another in the region are “road construction” (23%) and “condition of
roads/potholes/dangerous roads” (20%), followed by “congestion” (17%). Other perceived
problems include “don’t drive or have access to a car” (6%), “lack of public transportation”
(5%) and “lack of certainty about the time it will take to get there by car” (2%). Another
15% give an unspecified response and 13% have no opinion.
The biggest perceived problem(s) differ by city, but lack of public transportation is not a top
concern anywhere. Bend voters are most concerned about construction and condition of
roads, Redmond voters are most concerned with construction, Prineville voters say
congestion and Madras voters are concerned with condition of roads. The following table
illustrates these results.
Biggest Transportation Problem
Region- wide
Bend Redmond Prineville
Madras
Road construction 23% 20% 42% 4% 3%
Condition of roads, potholes,
and dangerous roads
20% 22% 12% 8%
26%
Congestion 17% 19% 8% 19% 18%
Don’t drive/have access to a car 6% 6% 2% 6% 7%
Lack of public transportation 5% 5% 6% 8% 7%
Lack of certainty about time 2% 2% 1% 2% 2%
Something else 15% 13% 14% 25% 21%
Don’t know 13% 12% 15% 27% 15%
APPENDIX B
DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 16 of 24
Funding Proposals
When given the chance to choose a preferred funding option for public transportation
expansion and improvements, fully 52% of the region’s voters prefer no tax or fee
increases. This includes one-in-three (33%) who prefer “re-allocation of funds from
programs and services” paid for by their city’s general fund and 18% who prefer no increase
(this was a volunteered response to this question). Among those who would be open to
some type of funding option, 14% prefer a city-wide sales tax on prepared food and
beverages, followed by a property tax increase for homeowners (9%), increased payroll
taxes for businesses (6%) and a utility fee for homeowners and businesses (5%). All voter
subgroups prefer re-allocation/no increases over any of the funding options.
Similarly, re-allocation/no increases is the leading preference among voters in all
cities. Redmond and Prineville residents are most likely to share this sentiment
(63% Redmond, 63% Prineville), but a plurality of voters in Madras and Bend are
also opposed to any type of increase (49% Bend, 47% Madras).
In a follow-up question, voters were asked why they preferred the option they chose. The
leading response for choosing re-allocation of the existing general fund dollars was “too
many taxes/can’t afford taxes.” There is less consensus for preferring the other options:
Those who prefer a property tax increase say they are “in favor of property taxes,”
“it’s fair,” “it’s the “best option” and “transportation is necessary.”
Those who prefer a utility fee say “everyone should be taxed equally,” “it’s fair,”
“homeowners shouldn’t have to shoulder the whole load” and it’s the “best option.”
Those who prefer a sales tax on prepared food/beverages say “tourists should/will
also contribute,” “in favor of food/sales tax,” it’s the “best option” and “everyone
should be taxed equally.”
Those who prefer an increase in payroll taxes say “transportation is necessary,”
“businesses should pay for it,” “funds are not spent properly,” “oppose a property
tax,” “don’t want them taking money from schools” and “too many taxes, can’t afford
taxes.”
Looking specifically at a potential property tax increase, the survey tested two funding
levels; a 35-cent per thousand/assessed home value and a 20-cent option. Survey results
reveal that neither property tax option would be approved in an election held today and the
lower option would also face an uphill battle to pass in the near future, at least while
economic issues are foremost on voters’ minds and lack of public transportation is not
perceived as a major problem.
APPENDIX B
DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 17 of 24
35-Cent Option
Region-wide, two-in-three voters (67%) would vote no on the 35-cent option, including
more than half (54%) who would “definitely” vote no. Just 27% would vote yes on this
option, presented as follows:
“Would you vote ‘yes’ to support or ‘no’ to oppose a property tax increase of an additional 35
cents per thousand dollars of assessed home value, or
BEND= $88 per year on a $250,000 home REDMOND= $70 per year on
a $200,000 home PRINEVILLE= $61 per year on a $175,000 home
MADRAS= $53 per year on a $150,000 home
to sustain and improve transit service levels in [CITY]?”
All voter subgroups across the region are opposed to this funding option. The strongest
support for this option comes from voters age 18-34, Democrats and “transit supporters.”
(“Transit supporters” include voters who say improving public transit is the most important
issue in their city, say public transit is “very important,” rate local public transit as
“excellent/above average” and voters who say a lack of public transit is their biggest
personal transportation problem.) However, support among any of these groups does not
reach a majority.
By city, the 35-cent option faces majority opposition among all four cities (67%
opposed in Bend, 68% in Redmond, 71% in Prineville and 57% in Madras).
20-Cent Option
A 20-cent property increase option is also opposed region-wide, with 54% opposed
(including 44% who are “definitely” opposed) and 42% in support (just 13% “definitely”
support). The language for the lower cost option follows and was asked among voters who
said “no” or were undecided on the 35-cent option. Results among these voters were then
combined with the “yes” responses on the 35-cent option to get overall results (it is
assumed that “yes” voters on the 35-cent option would also support the lower amount).
“Instead of 35 cents, would you vote ‘yes’ to support or ‘no’ to oppose a property tax
increase of an additional 20 cents per thousand dollars of assessed home value, or
BEND= $50 per year on a $250,000 home REDMOND= $40 per year on
a $200,000 home PRINEVILLE= $35 per year on a $175,000 home
MADRAS= $30 per year on a $150,000 home
to sustain transit service levels in [CITY]?”
As with the 35-cent option, the most supportive of the 20-cent option are voters age 18-34,
Democrats and “transit supporters.”
By city, Bend, Redmond and Prineville voters are opposed to the lower amount in
majority numbers (54% opposed in Bend, 56% Redmond, 59% Prineville).
However, in Madras, voters are divided on the 20-cent option (47% yes, 49% no).
Among the most supportive subgroups in Madras are women, younger voters,
Democrats and “transit supporters.”
APPENDIX B
DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 18 of 24
The following table illustrates results for both cost options.
Potential Property Tax Increase
35-Cent Option 20-Cent Option
Yes Don’t know No Yes Don’t know No
Region-wide 27% 6% 67% 42% 4% 54%
Bend 26% 6% 67% 41% 4% 54%
Redmond 26% 6% 68% 41% 3% 56%
Prineville 25% 4% 71% 39% 2% 59%
Madras 35% 8% 57% 47% 4% 49%
After the property tax increase options were tested, the following additional information was
presented to respondents:
“Here is some more information about a potential property tax increase, as you may know,
the final amount of the proposed property tax has not been determined.
A 35-cent property tax increase would allow for public transportation improvements
throughout your area, including increased bus routes, hours and frequency; expanded
weekend service and expanded shuttle service between Central Oregon cities.
A 20-cent property tax increase would maintain current public transportation service levels
only, with no improvements.
Based on this, do you prefer a 35-cent property tax increase option or a 20-cent property tax
increase option?”
Based on this additional information, there is no consensus among voters overall; 28%
prefer the 35-cent option, 31% the 20-cent option and 36% prefer no increase (a
volunteered option). Region-wide, among voters open to an increase, subgroups most
likely to support the 35-cent option over the 20-cent options are voters age 18-34,
Democrats and “transit supporters.”
After hearing this additional information, results by city follow:
Bend voters are divided between the options, but 37% still want no increase.
Redmond voters prefer the 20-cent option 31-22%, but 41% still want no increase.
Prineville voters are divided, but 35% still want no increase.
Madras voters are divided, but 28% still want no increase.
The survey also explored a potential utility fee option to fund transportation, described to
respondents as a “$2.75 per month utility fee, totaling $33 per year.” This funding option is
unpopular and generates majority opposition region-wide (55%). Further, 41% “strongly”
oppose (vs. 38% total support, 14% “strongly” support). Similar to the potential property
tax increase, the most supportive subgroups for a utility fee are younger voters, Democrats
and “transit supporters.”
Looking at city results, majorities of voters in all cities oppose a utility fee.
APPENDIX B
DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 19 of 24
The following table illustrates results for the utility fee.
Potential Utility Fee
Support utility fee
Don’t know
Oppose
utility fee
Region-wide 38% 8% 55%
Bend 39% 8% 54%
Redmond 35% 8% 58%
Prineville 31% 6% 62%
Madras 39% 9% 52%
Messaging
The survey also tested four messages about public transit and asked voters to rate the
importance of each when it comes to voting on a potential property tax increase.
The most effective message overall focuses on providing services for transit-dependent
residents; more than eight-in-ten (84%) say this is important in their voting decision for a
property tax increase.
“Improving public transit in [CITY] will provide services for area residents who are disabled or
elderly or are lower income who depend on transit service.”
This message is rated “very” important by more than 50% of all voters, region-wide and by
city, among all key voter subgroups.
The three additional messages tested are not nearly as effective. Although each receives
combined “total important” ratings above 50%, fewer voters say these messages are “very”
important in their voting decisions and the messages’ total “not important” scores are
higher.
A table illustrating these results follows.
APPENDIX B
DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 20 of 24
Public Transit Messages
Very imp. Somewhat
imp.
Total
imp.
Total not
imp.
Improving public transit in [CITY] will
provide services for area residents who
are disabled or elderly or are lower
income who depend on transit service.
Region-wide 54% 30% 84% 13%
Bend 55% 31% 86% 12%
Redmond 51% 30% 81% 15%
Prineville 53% 29% 81% 15%
Madras 57% 23% 80% 14%
Public transit is an affordable way to
travel and transit riders save thousands of
dollars when they forego owning a car and
rely on transit for most trips. Improving
public transit in [CITY] would allow area
riders to realize these savings.
Region-wide 29% 37% 65% 31%
Bend 28% 37% 65% 31%
Redmond 29% 35% 64% 29%
Prineville 22% 40% 62% 35%
Madras 35% 39% 74% 21%
Public transit is an important tool in
responding to environmental concerns
about air quality and greenhouse gases.
Region-wide 34% 33% 66% 31%
Bend 36% 32% 69% 29%
Redmond 29% 32% 61% 34%
Prineville 20% 33% 52% 44%
Madras 37% 34% 71% 25%
Public transit is essential to the economy
of the region. Improving public transit in
[CITY] will do more than provide basic
services – it will encourage and support
economic development.
Region-wide 28% 38% 66% 29%
Bend 29% 38% 67% 29%
Redmond 27% 34% 60% 33%
Prineville 19% 38% 57% 36%
Madras 32% 36% 67% 25%
The survey also tested two schools of thought on public transportation and asked if
respondents agreed or disagreed with each.
“Public transportation in the [CITY] area should be minimal, and primarily provide
transportation for people who have no other options, such as low-income residents, the
disabled and the elderly.”
“Public transportation in the [CITY] area should be substantial. Public transportation is an
important element for encouraging the area’s economic growth, and plays an important part
in reducing traffic congestion and our area’s environmental impact.”
APPENDIX B
DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 21 of 24
Region-wide, voters are more likely to agree that public transportation should be substantial
(66% agree, 32% strongly agree) rather than minimal (51% agree, 25% strongly agree).
Looking at subgroup responses region-wide, subgroups among the most likely to believe
transportation should be substantial include:
• Bend residents
• Women
• Voters age 18-64
• Democrats and Independents
• Voters who have voted in three or fewer of the last four elections
• “Transit supporters”
• Voters willing to pay a fee/tax increase for public transit
COIC communications should leverage the above subgroups’ support for “substantial” public
transportation into willingness to vote for funding measures for public transit.
Conversely, among the most likely to believe transportation should be minimal are:
• Prineville residents
• Republicans
• Fee/tax increase opponents
APPENDIX C
DRAFT CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 22 of 24
Transit Service Level Scenarios and High-Level Costs
December 13, 2013
The CET Funding Committee considered four service levels in their discussions. With the exception of
Scenario A, which is the current budget, the costs for each service level are high‐level estimates.
Scenarios Description Total Cost Estimated
Local
Portion
Scenario A – Current
Service
Current service levels –no budget for contingencies,
planning, outreach/engagement, or capital replacement.
$5.2 Million $1.9 Million
Scenario B – Current,
Sustainable and
Convenient
Current service levels PLUS
Conversion to fixed route in Redmond
Conversion to flex routes in Madras/Prineville
Budget for planning and outreach
Budget for capital replacement and
contingencies
$6.1 Million4 $2.3 Million
Scenario C – Mid‐term
Buildout
Full Mid‐term Buildout as Proposed in Bend and Regional
Transit Master Plans:
Additional local fixed routes in Bend and
Redmond
Later evening hours
Saturday service in rural areas
Additional Community Connector shuttle runs
Limited Sunday service
$9.2 Million5
$4.9 Million
Scenario D – Urban
Services
Conceptual Urban Transit Service with significantly
reduced headways and extensive expansion in service
hours (early morning and late evening), days, and CC
shuttle runs.
$16.3 Million $11.8 Million
4 Year 1 of Scenario B also includes a total capital expansion cost of $372,500. Local match will depend on the grant
program, but would typically be in the 10‐50% range ($37,000‐$186,000).
5 Year 1 of Scenario C would include $656,000 in capital expansion costs in Bend. Local match is estimated at 20% of
this total, or $131,200.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
DR
A
F
T
CE
T
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pa
g
e
23
of
24
DR
A
F
T
CE
T
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
To
o
l
s
an
d
Ra
t
e
s
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
19
,
20
1
3
Co
s
t
Fi
g
u
r
e
s
an
d
Ra
t
e
s
Up
d
a
t
e
d
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
13
,
20
1
3
Th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
ta
b
l
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
ra
t
e
s
to
ac
h
i
e
v
e
ne
e
d
e
d
lo
c
a
l
fu
n
d
i
n
g
to
su
p
p
o
r
t
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
tr
a
n
s
i
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
.
To
t
a
l
co
s
t
Lo
c
a
l
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
x
Ra
t
e
Pa
y
r
o
l
l
Ta
x
Ra
t
e
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Fee Rate
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
B – Su
s
t
a
i
n
cu
r
r
e
n
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
ca
p
i
t
a
l
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
an
d
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
.
Co
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
to
fi
x
e
d
ro
u
t
e
in
Re
d
m
o
n
d
,
fl
e
x
ro
u
t
e
s
in
Ma
d
r
a
s
an
d
Pr
i
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
.
$6
,
1
4
1
,
3
2
2
$2
,
2
9
6
,
0
9
2
$0
.
1
1
5
/
$
1
,
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
8
7
10
3
%
of the revenue
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
by Corvallis
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
C – Ex
p
a
n
d
se
r
v
i
c
e
to
le
v
e
l
s
co
n
t
e
m
p
l
a
t
e
d
in
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
an
d
Be
n
d
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ma
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
s
:
ne
w
ro
u
t
e
s
an
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
in
Be
n
d
;
la
t
e
r
ho
u
r
s
;
ad
d
e
d
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
an
d
Su
n
d
a
y
se
r
v
i
c
e
;
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Co
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
sh
u
t
t
l
e
s
$9
,
1
5
1
,
4
8
7
$4
,
8
9
2
,
2
3
3
$0
.
2
4
/
$
1
,
0
0
0
0.
0
0
1
8
5
21
5
%
of the revenue
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
by Corvallis
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
D – Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
to
tr
u
e
“u
r
b
a
n
tr
a
n
s
i
t
”
se
r
v
i
c
e
le
v
e
l
s
.
Ve
r
y
fr
e
q
u
e
n
t
bu
s
e
s
;
fi
x
e
d
ro
u
t
e
in
Be
n
d
,
Re
d
m
o
n
d
,
Ma
d
r
a
s
,
an
d
Pr
i
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
;
ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
ho
u
r
s
.
$1
6
,
3
7
2
,
1
9
7
$1
1
,
7
8
3
,
0
7
6
$0
.
5
7
5
/
$1
,
0
0
0
0.
0
0
4
4
4
52
0
%
of the revenue
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
by Corvallis
Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
to
Ot
h
e
r
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ra
t
e
s
Ba
s
i
n
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
$0
.
4
8
2
2
/
$1
,
0
0
0
Sa
l
e
m
‐Ke
i
z
e
r
$0
.
7
6
/
$
1
,
0
0
0
Ho
o
d
Ri
v
e
r
$0
.
0
7
2
3
/
$1
,
0
0
0
Ro
g
u
e
Va
l
l
e
y
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
$0
.
1
7
7
2
/
$1
,
0
0
0
Li
n
c
o
l
n
Co
u
n
t
y
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
$0
.
0
9
7
4
/
$1
0
0
0
La
n
e
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
0.
0
0
6
9
Tr
i
‐Me
t
0.
0
0
7
1
3
7
Ci
t
y
of
Ca
n
b
y
0.
0
0
6
Ci
t
y
of
Co
r
v
a
l
l
i
s
SF
homes: $2.75/mo.MF: $1.90/mo.
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
:
variable
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
/
N
o
t
e
s
:
“L
o
c
a
l
fu
n
d
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
”
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
lo
c
a
l
fu
n
d
i
n
g
so
u
r
c
e
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
Ci
t
y
/
C
o
u
n
t
y
ge
n
e
r
a
l
fu
n
d
,
st
a
t
e
ST
F
do
l
l
a
r
s
(a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
by
Co
u
n
t
i
e
s
)
,
an
d
co
n
t
r
a
c
t
in
c
o
m
e
,
so
m
e
of
wh
i
c
h
ma
y
re
m
a
i
n
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
to
CE
T
.
A lo
c
a
l
sa
l
e
s
ta
x
wa
s
no
t
an
a
l
y
z
e
d
in
th
i
s
ex
e
r
c
i
s
e
du
e
to
lo
w
po
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
fe
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
DR
A
F
T
CE
T
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pa
g
e
24
of
24
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
fu
n
d
i
n
g
is
as
s
u
m
e
d
to
be
co
n
s
t
a
n
t
.
To
t
a
l
co
s
t
is
an
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
– mo
r
e
de
t
a
i
l
e
d
co
s
t
s
wi
l
l
be
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
as
de
s
i
r
e
d
se
r
v
i
c
e
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
be
c
o
m
e
mo
r
e
re
f
i
n
e
d
.
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ta
x
an
d
pa
y
r
o
l
l
ta
x
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
ar
e
on
a co
u
n
t
y
‐wi
d
e
ba
s
i
s
;
ut
i
l
i
t
y
fe
e
s
ar
e
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
fo
r
Be
n
d
,
Re
d
m
o
n
d
,
Pr
i
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
,
Ma
d
r
a
s
city
li
m
i
t
s
on
l
y
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
,
Co
n
f
e
d
e
r
a
t
e
d
Tr
i
b
e
s
of
Wa
r
m
Sp
r
i
n
g
s
pa
y
r
o
l
l
is
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
th
e
to
t
a
l
pa
y
r
o
l
l
fo
r
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Co
u
n
t
y
.
Th
i
s
wi
l
l
ne
e
d
to
be
ba
c
k
e
d
out
to
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
mo
r
e
‐ac
c
u
r
a
t
e
pa
y
r
o
l
l
ta
x
ra
t
e
s
.
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
fe
e
in
c
o
m
e
is
ex
t
r
a
p
o
l
a
t
e
d
fr
o
m
Co
r
v
a
l
l
i
s
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
‐wi
d
e
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
in
c
o
m
e
in
FY
20
1
2
($
1
,
0
3
7
,
4
1
0
)
.
Wh
i
l
e
it
is
ea
s
y
to
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
fee
in
c
o
m
e
fr
o
m
ho
u
s
i
n
g
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
ra
t
e
s
,
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
pa
y
a va
r
i
a
b
l
e
ra
t
e
,
de
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
on
tr
i
p
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
in
th
e
In
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
of
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
Tr
i
p
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Ma
n
u
a
l
.
Mo
r
e
de
t
a
i
l
e
d
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
is
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
To
t
a
l
lo
c
a
l
fu
n
d
i
n
g
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
mo
d
e
s
t
co
s
t
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
ov
e
r
ti
m
e
pl
u
s
co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
.
Ma
j
o
r
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
in
co
s
t
s
su
c
h
as
ga
s
an
d
he
a
l
t
h
ca
r
e
are
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
no
t
ac
c
o
u
n
t
e
d
fo
r
.
Al
l
of
th
e
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
wi
l
l
ha
v
e
a Ye
a
r
On
e
ca
p
i
t
a
l
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
co
s
t
an
d
an
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
lo
c
a
l
ma
t
c
h
am
o
u
n
t
.
Th
e
s
e
co
s
t
s
ar
e
no
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in this
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
.