Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COIC Grant Request
Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Board Meeting Date: July 9, 2014 Organization: Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Organization Description: A regional public organization formed by cities and counties in Central Oregon under ORS 190 and which operates programs that include public transportation, workforce development, economic development, business loans, and community development. Project Name: Cascades East Transit Public Survey Project Description: Conduct a statistically valid survey designed to determine voter willingness to pay for transit services through a variety of funding mechanisms. Project Period: July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 Amount of Request: $2,091 Previous Grants: 1/1/2001 3/15/2002 9/15/2008 8/30/2010 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 Approved: Declined: Help fund Central Oregon non-sawtimber biomass market study Cultivating Our Local Food Economy Central Oregon Food Summit Today's Date: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97701-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200, Bend, OR Telephone: 541-388-6571 Fax: 541-385-3202 Website: w vw.deschutes.org DESCHUTES COUNTY DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION July 3, 2014 Project Beginning Date: Amount Requested: Project Name: July 1, 2013 $2,091 Name of Applicant Organization: Address: CET Public Survey Project End Date: Date Funds Needed: June 30, 2014 By August 30, 2014 Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) 1334 NE Hawthorne Avenue City & Zip Code: Contact Name(s): Fax #: Bend, OR 97701 Andrew Spreadborough 541-923-3416 Email Address: Tax ID #: Telephone #: 93-0620261 541-504-3306 aspreadborough@coic.org On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. * Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget. Deschutes County Discretionary Grant Program — Application Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) Project: CET Public Opinion Phone Survey July 3, 2014 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. COIC is a regional public organization formed by Central Oregon's cities and counties under ORS 190. COIC's roles include regional service delivery, planning, coordination and problem solving. Primary program areas include public transportation, workforce development, economic development, business loans, and community development. COIC operates the regional Cascades East Transit system. COIC's board of directors is composed of elected officials from each of the Central Oregon cities and counties, along with appointed members representing business, higher education, and chambers of commerce. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. In 2013 the COIC Board formed a committee charged with developing recommendations on local public funding options for Cascades East Transit. The committee specifically worked to develop recommendations on 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? As part of the CET committee process, in the Fall of 2013 COIC implemented a statistically -valid survey of registered voters to with the primary purpose of determining voter willingness to pay for transit through a variety of funding tools. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. The survey work was completed in September 2013. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. This project benefits the region by generating needed information to develop sustainable funding for the CET transit system. The CET system in turn benefits the region by creating a stable, sustainable transit system that can be relied upon by regional social service agencies and clients; businesses and employees; key sectors such as tourism, health care, and education; and the general public. The survey results of the survey indicate that voters are unlikely to approve a new transit taxing measure in the next 1- 3 years. These results provided a foundation for the committee's work in developing a strategy to develop a sustainable funding model for the CET system. These recommendations include short term actions to stabilize the system through partnerships with cities, counties and key institutions, while working toward a long-term goal of establishing a dedicated local funding tool for the system. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. All of Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson counties. CET services are regional in nature, with services between and within the communities of Bend, Culver, La Pine, Madras, Metolius, Prineville, Redmond and Sisters. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. COIC contracted with Portland -based opinion research firm Moore and Associates to conduct the statistically valid phone survey of registered voters. Outcomes of the survey are included within the CET Funding Committee recommendations (attached), within appendix B. The overall cost of the survey was $40,000. The costs are have been shared among several partner agencies: • COIC received an ODOT grant which covered $21,818 of the cost. • The City of Bend contributed $10,000. • COIC contributed $4,091. • Jefferson County has contributed $1,000. • A request has been submitted to Crook County to fund $1,000. COIC is requesting that Deschutes County fund the remaining balance of $2,091. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. The survey was a one-time expenditure. Future surveys will be covered by grants and other funding sources. CET Local Dedicated Public Funding Subcommittee FINAL Recommendations January 27, 2014 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 committee 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 committee met eight times from August 2013 through January 2014 and produced these 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: 1. Central Oregon's local governments — cities and counties — and COIC are the key partners for transit service delivery for two reasons: • 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. • 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. FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 1 of 25 2. Unlike partnerships with cities and counties, "focused partnership funding1i 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. 3. 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. 4. 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- 3 years. Therefore, the CET local public funding strategy requires a multi -phased approach, with short-term and long-term elements. 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 short-term funding methods that are tied to the actual cost of providing a base level of service (Scenario B — see box next page) in each community and across the region. • Build COIC's outreach and engagement capacity to increase public awareness of and support for the CET system. • Where base service is made available, COIC will focus on adding value through "focused partnerships" with partner organizations and agencies. Phase Two (long term) elements: 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. FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 2 of 25 • Develop a dedicated, local, publicly -funded tool to achieve sustainable and convenient ("Scenario B") service levels across the region. The committee reviewed the range of local funding tools available to transportation and transit districts in Oregon and reached the conclusion that based on what we know today the committee's preferred local dedicated public funding tool is a region -wide property tax. However, the committee noted that conditions may change over the next 1-3 years, so COIC must continue to consider/evaluate other options for dedicated local funding. • If possible, the property tax would be levied by COIC through the ORS 190.083 provision. • Focused partnership agreements will be established with entities not subject to property taxes; establishment of 'in lieu of property tax' contributions will demonstrate broad support for the system. • The funding tool will replace existing funding sources in areas that desire Scenario B service levels. In areas that desire Scenario C (see Box this page) 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. payroll taxes are only available for Mass Transit Districts). The committee recommends the following: • Due to economies of scale and the inter -community nature of essential trips (to access work, school, medical services, etc.) maintain a regionally -based transit system with preference for ongoing governance by COIC. • Determine if existing ORS 190.083 will allow COIC to levy a property tax for transit operations (subject to voter approval). If not, pursue legislative changes to allow COIC this authority. • Long-term, maintain regional governance with COIC or, if ORS190.083 provisions are unavailable, 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 Box this page), and recommends the following: Transit Service Levels The Committee contemplated various service levels in making its recommendations. Here's how each were defined: Scenario A. Unsustainable/Status Quo: Current service hours and routes, with no funding for planning, outreach/engagement, or capital replacement. Declining ridership. Scenario B. Sustainable and More Convenient: Restoration of service hour cuts made in 2012 on the rural system, plus conversion to fixed route in Redmond, and to flex routes in Prineville and Madras. Budget for planning, outreach/engagement, and capital replacement. Scenario C. Attract Choice Riders: Additional local routes in Bend and Redmond; later evening service system -wide; Saturday service in rural areas, Sunday in Bend; additional community connector shuttles. Scenario D. Urban Transit: Conceptual urban -level route density and frequency (e.g. Lane or TriMet service levels). More information on page 22 FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 3 of 25 • At a minimum, provide a sustainable and more convenient level of service (Scenario B, see Box) across the region within the short-term time frame. • Aspire to a more -robust (Scenario C, see Box) service level across the region over the long-term. The Scenario B service level corresponds to the short-term service levels developed in the Bend and Regional Transit Master Plans. The Scenario C service level corresponds to the mid-term improvements in each Plan. 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, and business in general. • 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 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 Box 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. FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 4 of 25 • 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. • Over the long-term, the committee's preferred local dedicated public funding tool is a region -wide property tax. The committee reviewed the range of local funding tools available to transportation and transit districts in Oregon and reached the conclusion that based on what we know today the committee's preferred local dedicated public funding tool is a region -wide property tax. However, the committee noted that conditions may change over the next 1-3 years, so COIC must continue to consider/evaluate other options for dedicated local funding. • If possible, the property tax would be levied by COIC through the ORS 190.083 provision. FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 5 of 25 Detailed Committee Recommendations with Implementation Actions ro 0 Increase service levels to attract • E 0 1— CL E c \§7 £o cu z �/� / § G 2 §_.° _ I C • 0 \ / D_0 5 f\E/ p ƒt •r o $ u 2 « 0 IP 0 , d >- 0 E 1- .c : E 7 c E m e / $ 0 u a ¢ c c ) a) \ / c 2( \3\ 0 e = e u a) [ G 0 / 2 4. / -0 a Lk \ CD sn � / E ._ = = E a) 2 e £ u § @ \ \ — % G >4_w2 \ e ° 3 £ _ c o 02 \0. c = 0 = 2 0 B o \ § g 4 2 § ;\ 2 \ 2 0 % 3 / 4-, \ 0 0 $ I . . / vi 0 k Cl § °r-1» E 0) C i / ? > CO = / CU t \ / \ § k E - o » \ 0 \ £ 7 2 7 k q ( 0 ° \ V) Q f / 0 0 > co — % 2 0 ( > CO 0 U = 0 = '0 E 0 0 g. 0 - CC f # 0 / \ \ ' \ ° U 0 @ u 00 _ 2 0 = 0 = o (0 > D 7 > ® c0 •• E w o co 0 = o = _ 0 2 u = 5 0 ± ° o s E \ -0 / 0) o 0 @ t 0 k k E 0 w v § \ 4-'/ o � \ 0 c c / \ \ c \ � tCO 0 = E = 5 R E CO § > 7 0 / \ W E E a 0 ._ 73 3 / \ / o ) \ 0 a) ° cm u e > t a o \k 2 3 0 \ = / % 5 » 0) ° >•- 0 m 0) CO 0 — 5 \ % f § @ k E \ E u { = o » 5 % u ._•_ — a' u E° 2 a E % a) E 0 E - / ) = t 0-o \ 0 i \ £ / k Customize services to meet demand; utilize appropriate mobility . . . . . Governance and O. 00 0 Level of Service 2 k R onc- \\ \/ \k Ga LA INI La 0 E•C = 4.0 2 a) u op \ CO $ R c ° FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations c 0 0 0 Q c (0 L 0) 0) 4-,0 > 0 0 Q 0 4-,4-, VI O C O O v /( L C O O 0 CO 0 0 E 0) (0 0) a) L C 0) m a) u •L 0) (o o. a) 0 a) 0) c O a a 0 0 4-, 0 > N 0) C -0 0) 0) a) L a) t.) CU 0 a) U L a) N 0 0) 0 E a) c 0 U U 4-, 0) U 4-, 0 (0 0) U a) (0 L U U 0 U N 0 OA 0) (0 0) 0 L O O 00 (0 C CU U CU L 0 4-,c ro n c 0 c CU D:1 0 4-,a) L 4-,L 2O project, and UGB 2 H 0 .0 (0 Q x 0) U U 3 N O ca 2 0 0 0) 4-, O Q Q O 0) a) c 0 4-, 0 0 4-,C 0 .c ro Q x a) c 0 a+ CCCO O C L 0 O i LL Q � 0 C Y C (o (0 c ro CU 0 C O L U L U oQ L N 0) N C 0 R N 7 O C 0i L 0 0_ U 0 C 0 U \i u -0 0. O) N a) O c CL CU 110 c > i 3)i C w +, 0 i U CO 0 -- ‚/‚ services. a) U a) 4- 4-, C a) E a) 0) d0 0 00 c L U (0 CU > 0 0_ 0 N > a) 0 a) U L O . • • O O 00 C LL U U 0 0) CO4-, U 0) 0 a) 0) U 0) 00 4- C 0 0) > 0) 0 0 CD > O) 0 ro (0 2 (130) '5 0) c c O E 0) L O 0 0 0 a) 0 CC 0 E 4 0 c 0 • 0) > C 0 4-,U O 0- 0- 0 0- 0 00 a c _O To 0 O 0) U c (0 L c a) vi CU U .> 0) (0 U O E L 0 4-,c 0 0 U • f0 -0 ‘- a) a) (I) i 0A O C 0 a) a) v c Y � v- ) -0 C 0 a, a; C 0 0 U L 0) i•+ N N m L . 0 0 (7 0 4-, a) w 0) L 0 0_ L a) 4-, C O_ 0) 0 U 0 LL • 0) 0) 0) u a) 0) > 0 Q •E O (0 0 v 0 0 > C 0 CU> c• 0) 0 0 -0 IP CU (0 N •5 Ccu 0D O c C a) U aJ 0)c 01) (13 0 b4 4 C V) Q 7 L +' V) V/ CU C C i - a•+ (0 a) Q N C CO C o Q) rA 0 N u .c > VI '7 10 (o 0 C7 • a t 1 a) Focused" Pa 0) L .N O Q 0) 0) L a) cu c7 > O O cc ) -0 0 C (0 U 0) ii= ..O a(0+ O E Q) L 0 0 lF n C (0 0 CU IP >- Q a) 0 a. 7 -0 E c 0 (° C O 0 -0 U � .0 O 7 n E LE O 00 a) _ c o 00 0 C a o o 0) a) c 00 c a) a) E a) co 0) U L a) 0 L O Q 0_ 0 L Q 0) (0 CD 00 0) 00 (0 a) 0) 0 Q L 0) c 0 Q Q O > 0) 0 . • • 0) a) CU O> L Q E O C 0 roc 0 00 0 N L 0 O 0 v a) c Q) 00 (0 (0 N 73 4- O a) C•+ CO 4-, VI v al .71 L (0 c E 0 00 C ,ji c � U ro O ro U Q N C O 0 00 U L (0 O 0 a N v c a.) u cot U N a) 0. 0 I- V, i O 0 O (0 (0 0. Q) (c VUf U 7 F- L)U 0 Q1 LL O m V1 FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Long Term (5 Years +) v, o E c L o 4.., L L • `- 4J C OD 0- C ++ a) a) C N >- N •L v L) , w a) O te coca-+ L C OD in V, 'C a) a C C o � E .v -a a) E ca c ^ O T L > O t_2):_3 .S o 41 O O a-+ Cl.)st a O O E N '( L• = c a) > +J co +, L (0 O co co a_n V E C N co i L o w 'O (O C C u 5 C L :Q O m c on TD C CU vi • > 0 0 to V - c V 3 4", , JCO CD X c a v, W 'O o V • ■ Q c CO 0 O c (1) > E v L OA p OD to L C CU a) C 7 V C CO s - O U O (o 0 (7 • N L OD v, a) ..- OD To O O U +' hD > (0 ut OD C ( — I c L CD C L '� u, _, aJ Y a) E co N °) 0 C-7 c) O 0 (0 -o a) Q O +�+ 0 i a 0 aJ a c +' c v E O (0 L U '6 OA L cu E o o OD a a LO O a) O t IA N C 0) c co (Oi, L C In U C 0 In OD - 0 i C (0 L p tt N •• O p C C O O in O L a 0) }, O CO C (0 L ++ `� +' a) a C -tov a O a) ,,, ° c t E c O- ` C aj Q au) E a) O O `~ c n 0 (0 0 (O .- CO aa) U O i .� '� O O {L., a) ((0 a j. 0 0D L a a va)i 0 O O +'' OA >' i U of L p +, co _o p +_ OCD a \ v a) a) aJ CO O O a a - c ca +J w X E c o0 cLo (na O v) C\ c OL c L V c v, (o a) �J a a-+ (o T O O O oa Q) N X N Q C (0j (0 *' a u a X C 6) w E •c a) +� p c c a F, L a) L E C o +' •-• L a) a) ut v,E O L L) ca L ca CS 3 a) U L a U 0 a) t E co L p L a v v o �, L o 0 E L U v, j L 0 `~ O c Y (n d4-cs.47,- 02a) vi'4-, ft O n) VS } E do > O 0 +, a c a) c }, = 0 C v c ar o tiA c araJ c co .= 'a c O O c L l0 + _c4- 0 O 3 T7,-; E 0 0= E O a, a) C c04 u O Vj — a L C a (0 a OA a o c0 ' N a) U O i E E L cc.,, . U oD a v O a) 0 ,}i, t E D 0 0 p a, Q (LO O s- o N 0 ,0i, a) u) v +� E r + L o+ U a E c U<—I C1 O 3 •v E v -O U L L/ VI •L (l O O 0 0 O O LL OU d H a • • • • a) O N c O V a N ro (0 V (0 U 0 CU V CO4- .E T V a) 0) O 2 W a) (0 co L L co a) 4J OC' c0 0) a-, -0 ut c CO CO a-' } c O E a) 0 OO 0 00 0)) C (O a) L ((00 U ? c o E, " W O CU _ro V `n O L U O L T -': V, O (o a T CO OD C c (F a) c rO (0 N E (a O C7 • a) E 0 00 (o d4 c C. W +' t 0 f0 2 -137 O (o (NI 4O 00 a) O0 (0 a FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations N (0 (0 E can ro 0 E (a U 0A C 4 - CL a 0 N CO p +, U • L. (0 a) >- 1— '6 H0 L H -o (0 p 0b V1 U a) > C +�•, Y 4% to i r0 QJ V7 O Q 0 L a..' U c CL = U C Y 20 L E (0 o cu vp N 4L-+ a0 - a) a) a-, 0A O ut a) C ai 40 'C C l0 •+O O > C > (o ^ s- 0 .0 5 a) a) a✓ 7 00 +' E .a O a `) V) 4- C CO 4-, C (0 N "O 0 C N (0 3 ca L C C +.' L O N vt +, 00 V) 0 l0 a-, -0 C (0 a) (0 3 E a, (0 o a) Cl .0 -O 0 7 3 .'�' ca >. i •5 O ,n O U 0 ut Y (Cll 0 i1 i1 CO W pU W Y "O U 0 • • • • Q CT i O O a) (0 4 C a) -a vi C2 t vi u 0 in C O _' O .0 �O C N C1 +L, (0 Q i a u h0 +L- �' a, N 00 C OC.O (0 aa-. = N C CO L p L -p aJ •a=, 0aOA t O O E a (06 000 Y E 0. aO•' `- �O c a) N EO L i (0 (0 a) 0 +(0 a"' V) CO p C C 0 E C2 0 a-, p in O a) 0 +M in N•, > 0 a) E > 0 i (0 0 U 7 C 0 a) '� O C -p p' .> (0 n3 _ 0 CS L a) U i v Cro -� L N 7 ate-+ 4-,"O '--•, U C U E o_ V1 0.0 (0 4- 0 .N c O N C V7 Q o E p O O N ` OC O o 'n U •� LO i a) 0 OA a) C L O C2 >• OD dA 0 a .E 'n ..O 3 0 \ N v1 7 O O C 0 E va✓i aL-+ O a) L O 4-, U C a- E> U (o O VI co a) O N O 7 f0 -0 +L•' j i t 0CA OOD C a-+ +L•, Q C > O N C +,, a0-, a) 40- 4- a) a✓ 73 Q w CL _C co vs C a O 0 Q (0 a0•, C UaJ O i +0•, E 00 O C a.•+ L U Q C 0 O (0 :•-• +, co a it aL, Q C (0 L +0, O U a) O- ••O E 0- ` C 'n a) U C Q m c ro Cl U CIO E L L 0 0A p ,, i C L U vii 16 0 N O 7 +' O cu 0A a) C 0 1pl OL O a) -0 a) +L.' C Y -0 H 0 0 a) 4- L C vi L CO 0- _C 2 >, '� i -O 0) :w.,LCO bCA U +L•, ut L \ O L a-, O +, au, (0 a) C a. a) 17 (\1 L U a) L C dp 0 E (0 i a) O OD L 0 L1 C (�O 0.E 0 E (0 U a) f0 O "p O (a E 00 a) Cl in O co O 0> j m Q o 0 Q a CD 0 w m (tea a 1`— E CU CO • • • • • • • • • • FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Long Term (5 Years +) • >. 0 c 0 O L VI O V (0 a) CU U a) -c O bA 3 N 0 n +' rn (0 00 0 - 7, >. a t 0 o 0 CC L a ,0) v U a)� a Iu hc0 v O 0) 0) 73 '- C CU U (0 0) O U f0 C u c > (a Y c3 CU 0) CO N C L (06 > UO 0 LJ 3 c a) •i X 0) 0 (0 a) -0 O VI • j c +•' O) O u N u N 00 3 `" NE O c o m 0) bD +-' 'AO - N a C 00 a) = C CO "O -0 3 0 F --•u-.(1) 4 3z-.° • c 0 u Note: All Actions listed elsewhere in this table are oriented towards the above (0 bD c 'Es c > 0) 3 0) 4-, 4- 0 CU rom CI) 0) CL 0) L u a) 0 0 0) t 0 C 00 4-' = i) {+ 3 a) L 0 Q C n3 CO O c ++ O in E EO "3 a V L U U c0 x nV _ m c 'O >. 4J = c 3 C CO 01 3 a to a 4- m 4- V 0 3 a a 0 0) 0) c CO c 00 (0 CL o E Short Term (1 to 5 Years) 0 V/ c 0) E c 0) > O GA (0 U O O 0) 0) E E O V 00 c c 3 LJ_ O a E O U O OD c OD 0) b0 (0 to c CU N c (0 i-+ OD c 0 a a ro3 c b0 0 c T 0_ 0) -) 0) O E E a) s CU OD CO bD c 0) vi U 0) 4-, CD .4= c vi 3 00 O U '4.., 0) c N (o E C 0) >. O U c 0 4-' U c ,GO c onc O) p_ N U N OD c L- as (o OA 0 L c c • 2 3 \ .-i a i 0 U (0 > ro 0) .= 0) E 2 0) 3 a) OD Q O C c bD o.E n>> c x(0 m Li.) 2 0 • • • • a) 0) a) U .� 0L) m O (0 0) U N L u (o a) 0 00 c c 3 U 3 CL O) O 0 'a0 a) co L 0) 4-' W O U L Q m a 3 > 3 0 L 0 L a) c 3 E E 0 u c 0) > O) 0) U .> a) U 0 ro0) U 1 0) > 0) t U 0) t 00 L t 0) 3 E E O U c L (0 0) (o V U 0) CL LO c (0 a) U N U V 0 U l0 u U to 0 0 0) V a) bD N 0 (o • 0) 0) 3 O L CU *- s- L a) 0 (0 L VI 0 0) O 0) c C CO 00 c c 3 73 roc 4 co • 00 c c 3 c c 0) 3 0 U (0 0) 47.0 (0 V 0 0) 00 ro 00 c LU • a L 0) 4-,C i CO CL c 0 U 0) E E • N a) 3 0 u O) t 3 0 Gp 3 0 t 4-,m 0 (0 a) V 0) U L O) O 0) > 0) a) (0 0) (0 c .(0 3 a _O O V (0 3 co U O a 3 0) (0 0) 00 c 3 4- 0) > 0) c 3 E E O U O 00 0) L O) 0 a L 4-,0) c CO 0- a) a) CI) t 1- 0) 0) c -c U (moo E (0 U 0 c (0 m 0 roc 0) u Ln N c O •- U C4! (0 -0 L (/J a o E ft, C O bD V 3 U 0) 73 a c +J a, c a) E o 0) Q > N O 0) L 0 V; (I) bA c C*- -10 c a) 2 � CO (0 E L U 0 N 0 to 0) a 0) a) a) U c (o E O 0) a c (o OO c O O E a) O 00 c (0 (0 E 0) c 3 E E O U a) t 4-, 0) (0 O) 0) t (0 0 E 0) c (o 0 c (I) m L (0 V) 4-, O E 0) t a) (0 0 c (0 0) U •L N V/ c (0 0 0) 0) 4-, en a) ro 0) 00 a) t t 3 Dedicated Local Public Funding Tools 00 c 0 3 O 0) V 3 0 L CU t 0 0) 3 U (0 L c a) E a) 0) ro 00 0) 0 m v c c CO N U 3 O OD c c 3 (0 V O bD 0) a) 00 c 7 U c a i 0) (0 a Page 10 of 25 FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations APPENDICES 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 FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 11 of 25 APPENDIX A 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 • • Discuss committee goals, process and timeline Orient participants to CET funding framework; Work to date on system Committee Orientation vision, planning, and sustainable system funding concepts and CET Overview • 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 • Review of CET service level/cost scenarios • Detailed review range of transit system funding mechanism options Data and Info on Budget and Funding Mechanisms • Determine CET Committee need for additional information, data, research, etc. Meeting #3 — September 20 • Detailed review range of options for transit system governance • Review preliminary outcomes of regional public phone survey Data and Info on Governance • Determine CET Committee need for additional information, data, research, etc. Meeting #4 — October 4 • Discussion of geographic governance options • Review final survey outcomes and findings/meet with consultant firm Regional Options • Determine CET Committee need for additional information, data, research, etc. Meeting #5 — October 18 • Facilitated Committee discussion regarding options for a sustainable funding approach. Preliminary identification of recommendations. Facilitated Discussion — CET Sustainability • Determine CET Committee need for additional information, data, research, etc. Concepts Meeting #6 - November 1 • Develop draft recommendations on sustainable funding approach Develop Draft/Preliminary Recommendations Meeting #7 — November 15 • Develop draft recommendations on sustainable funding approach Develop Draft/Preliminary • Achieve concurrence on recommendations to COIC Board Recommendations November 15 — January 2014 • Provide draft recommendations to COIC Board, city councils, County Outreach boards of commissioners, and stakeholders; solicit comment and feedback. Meeting #8 — TBD • Based on COIC Board questions and feedback, revise/refine recommendations Develop Revised/Final • Discuss implementation concepts and next steps Recommendations • Achieve concurrence on revised recommendations to COIC Board COIC Board Meeting — • COIC Board accepts final recommendations February 6, 2014 • COIC Board approves sustainable funding plan for CET system Acceptance of Recommendations FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 12 of 25 APPENDIX A 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 Neighborlmpact 541-548-2380 ext102 scottc@neighborinnpact.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 FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 13 of 25 APPENDIX B MOORE INFORMATION OPINION RESEARCH • STRATEGIC ANALYSIS 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. 428 4`h St., Ste. 8 2130 SW Jefferson St. Ste. 200 121 South Ave West, Ste. 406 Portland, OR 97201 Annapolis, MD 21403 M ssoula, MT 59801 503.221.3100 410.216.9856 406.317.1662 FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 14 of 25 APPENDIX B 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). FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 15 of 25 APPENDIX B 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 Road construction Condition of roads, potholes, and dangerous roads Congestion Don't drive/have access to a car Lack of public transportation Lack of certainty about time Something else Don't know Bend Redmond Prineville Madras 23% 20% 42% 4% 3% 20" in 22% 12% 8% 26% 19% 8% 19% 18% 6% 2% 6% 7% 5% 6% 8% 7% 2% 1% 2% 2% 13% 14% 25% 21% 12% 15% 27% 15% FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 16 of 25 APPENDIX B 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 Progertv 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. FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 17 of 25 APPENDIX B 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." FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 18 of 25 APPENDIX B The following table illustrates results for both cost options. Potential Property Tax Increase 35 -Cent Option 20 -Cent Option Region -wide Bend Redmond Prineville Madras Yes Don't know No Yes Don't know No 27% 6% 67% 42% 4% 54% 26% 6% 67% 41% 4% 54% :26% 6% 68% 41% 3%/0 56% 25% 4% 71% 39% 2°Io 59% :35% 8% 57% 47% 4r'I0 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. FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 19 of 25 APPENDIX B The following table illustrates results for the utility fee. Potential Utility Fee Support utility fee Don't know Oppose utility fee Region -wide Bend Redmond Prineville Madras 38% 8°/o 55% 39% 8% 54% 35% 8% 58% 31% 6% 62% 39% 9% 52°I4 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. FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 20 of 25 APPENDIX B Public Transit Messages Very imp. Somewhat Total Total not imp. imp. 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 Bend Redmond Prineville Madras 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. 54% 30% 55% 31% 51% 30% 53% 29% 57% 23% 84% 13% 86% 12% 81% 15% 81% 15% 80% 14% Region -wide Bend Redmond Prineville Madras Public transit is an important tool in responding to environmental concerns about air quality and greenhouse gases. Region -wide 29% 37% 28% 37% 29% 35% 22% 40% 35% 39% 65% 31% 65% 31% 64% 29% 62% 35% 74% 21% 34% 33% 66% 31% Bend 36% 32% 69% 29% Redmond 29% 32% 61% 34% Prineville 20% 33% 52% 44% Madras 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 Bend Redmond Prineville Madras 37% 34% 71% 25% 28% 38% 29% 38% 27% 34% 19% 38% 32% 36% 66% 29% 67% 29% 60% 33% 57% 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." FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 21 of 25 APPENDIX B 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 FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 22 of 25 APPENDIX C 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 B and C were developed from the recently -completed Bend Transit Plan and Regional Transit Master Plan processes. 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 Million' $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 that is not included in this figure as it is a one-time cost. 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. FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations Page 23 of 25 APPENDIX D cd c f0 -1 H 0 O ✓ l • 1 c a) =o c E a) LL Q. W (1) :.J LL ._ < 00 CC '17 O 0 m r1 0 m -1 a) E a) U a) 0 a) r▪ a 0- a) r▪ a ns 0) 00 11 H 0 U The following table provides estimated rates to achieve needed local funding to support different transit service scenarios. Utility Fee Rate 103% of the revenue generated by Corvallis 215% of the revenue generated by Corvallis 520% of the revenue generated by Corvallis SF homes: $2.75/mo. MF: $1.90/mo. Businesses: variable Payroll Tax Rate 0.00087 0.00185 0.00444 0l l0 0 o 0 N m r1 r` 0 0 l0 o 0 o Property Tax Rate 0 0 o . .`n -I r1 0 in• $0.24/$1,000 N o In o ci .4 in• in• $0.4822/ $1,000 0 00 � N o in• $0.0723/ $1,000 _ o N 0 r1 0 o ri in• in. _ 00 0 0 o r1 i/} i/? Local Funding Required N 01 0 0) al N N in. $4,892,233 $11,783,076 Comparison to Other Community Rates Basin Transit 0) N _NI a) 0) f0 In Hood River Rogue Valley Transit District Lincoln County Transit Lane Transit District 0) 2 I- City of Canby City of Corvallis Total cost $6,141,322 N 00 .-i .moi 01 in. N 0) .-1 N M l0 .--1 in- Scenario B — Sustain current service, including capital replacement and expansion. Conversion to fixed route in Redmond, flex routes in Madras and Prineville. ' Scenario C — Expand service to levels contemplated in Regional and Bend Transit Master Plans: new routes and increased frequency in Bend; later hours; added Saturday and Sunday service; additional Community Connector shuttles Scenario D — Significant service expansion to true "urban transit" service levels. Very frequent buses; fixed route in Bend, Redmond, Madras, and Prineville; expanded hours. -oc E co ra 0 a h a) 0 4 v c - a) C a) 00 T C 0 U T � _.(1-:);)D 1y � 0D U 'ro C v u . ro '+ U o 5 c o m 2 E o c v v C(0 O c r>s a - E V 'L • L a) 3 x 00 v Co `I N O C ✓ -0 CU -0 (1) 1,1 E f0 c O C C (0 -0} o c N C f9 0 a) O x C C +, zA n" 0) cu c M V N O 4- (3) _ Z (73++ f6 U O O O U O_ E • • an VI Page 24 of 25 FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations APPENDIX D 4-,¥ / >0 =2 E o E 2 § $ CO CO •0 5 / 0 a a a 2 &/ ) % 2 77 \ M //ro o_ - \ (0 \c 5J Q \ E E CO r E2 & �� V) o y & 9 = § 5 13 0 ƒ ( 0 o o 7co g -0 \ } Wal 0 ) \ & - § \ s } f - \ % 3 7 § CU 2 E E 2 \; § oe / 5 / L ) 2. \ �-o \ /\2 - \ &2§\ «s17� - -o _ ; © _ ) ± _ in 0_ § .— E ` \��_ E \ k ( - S D. § a -0 ° � & �§§ = o § 'CO § e k $ E / -a @ k 2 c k / § / C o 0" g E 8 0 7 \ / t / § • ® tv�\ %2='-D = a 5 > a{ c o a E § $ CO f $ / E . 2 � o &$ 0. cu c£ k \a\ 2§«//f2 \ E § E [ / g § § %� E r o 110 a 2 c 4- 0 2/ CL \\ /; § e . (0 u w/ E/ 2 0 _ § a) e - = \) E § t @ % § 8 c @-&= e a E c= 2 = 3 E -o _ o E s e ± / _ / \ a \ .- c 0 U To ro Page 25 of 25 FINAL CET Funding Committee Recommendations