Gresham parks feasibility study

OUR PARKS, OUR FUTURE FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY:

SEPTEMBER 2010

CITY OF GRESHAM, OREGON

CITY OF GRESHAM, OREGON: FEASIBILITY STUDY: SEPTEMBER 2010

Trust for Public Land: Research Department

2



3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 2

Fiscal Portrait 10

Demographics 11

Top 25 Priorities

Local Parks, Trails and Open Space Funding 16 Property Taxes 16

The Property Tax in Gresham 18 Using the Local Option Levy for Parks, Trails and Open Space 19

Bonds 21 General obligation bonds 21

Special Districts 24 Park and Recreation District 24 East Multnomah County Regional Park District 27

Park Utility Fee 28 Specific Tax 29 City Park and Recreation Fees 30 Urban Renewal Agency 30 System Development Charges (SDCs) 32 Voter Turnout and Registration 34 Election Results 35

Recommendations 38



2

Executive Summary The City of Gresham, Oregon has long enjoyed a history of parks and natural area appreciation. City residents, when asked in 1988 and 1990, favored taxing themselves to acquire parkland and protect natural areas. However, as the economy worsened over the past several years, voters found themselves in the difficult position of saying “no”…not just to parks, but to funding for virtually any public service, including fire and police. At the same time, the City has been forced to eliminate positions, including within the parks department, resulting in degrading amenities, a maintenance backlog, and missed opportunities for beginning to reach recommended parks service levels. As we all know, parks are more than just fields set aside from development. They offer places for healthy and safe recreation, exercise, and competition. They offer moments of solitude and escape when we need it most. And they offer countless opportunities to our local businesses in retaining and attracting a quality workforce. Simply put, parks are paramount in the quality of life we all seek. Fortunately, the City has recognized that while times are tough, the need for sustainable parks funding is increasing. The City convened a Green Ribbon Task Force to research and make recommendations for available parks-funding options, and also contracted with The Trust for Public Land (TPL) to work with the City and the Task Force on working through options.

This report analyzes Gresham’s current funding for its parks and open spaces and examines the most viable options for financing park and open space acquisition and improvements.

In Oregon, a range of public financing options have been utilized to fund parks and land conservation, such as the property tax and general obligation bonding. TPL’s research will focus on broad-based mechanisms capable of generating significant funding at the local level that are practical and have been proven. Many of these funding options require voter approval. In 1988, Gresham voters passed a $4.5 million parks acquisition bond. In 1990, they led the region by voting to protect natural and scenic resources by approving a $10 million bond measure to pay for the purchase of these lands. More recently, however, voters in Gresham have shown an aversion for public finance/spending measures, including one parks-related measure, and most recently a five-year local option levy for increased police service. Therefore, public opinion polling is recommended to gauge potential support for any funding measure to be considered for parks, trails, and open space in Gresham. The Appendix to this report contains a chart summarizing the local funding options presented in this report.

City staff have prioritized the top 25 Parks projects as a way to hone in on the most important needs to fund. Based on community surveys, areas of deficiency, maintenance impacts, geographical distribution and other factors, the list of the top 25 projects amounts to $99.6



3

million. Broken down into a 20-year life, the combination of the costs for the top 25 projects plus the annual maintenance costs and the annual contribution to the capital replacement fund equates to $8.5 million a year. Therefore, this report will focus on ways to create $8.5 million a year for 20 years in public funding to achieve a path towards sustainability. In terms of revenue generation to achieve $8.5 million a year, there are several ways of comparing each funding option. In the West, TPL uses a rule of thumb that voters typically will support an average per-household increase to their taxes of $50/year. Polling will tell us if we need to go below or can consider going above that level, but for purposes of comparing various funding mechanisms, we focus on $50/household/year. Looking at all the funding mechanisms that were studied (details to follow below), using the $50/household/year matrix does not come close to $8.5 million a year in revenue. Such is the reality of trying to fund our parks system in a recessed economy. However, by starting small and building a funding program that voters trust, it becomes easier to grow towards reaching the City’s yearly target.

It should be made clear that businesses will also pay the cost for any conservation finance measure. In Gresham about two-thirds of property tax collections are from residential properties and about one-third come from business properties. The following charts show the impact for businesses for a variety of funding mechanisms, based on $100,000 of tax valuation.

Property Tax Taxable Annual City Levy* Valuation** Revenue

Gresham $0.12 $12.00 $19.20 Fairview $0.12 $12.00 $23.66

Troutdale $0.12 $12.00 $25.49 Wood Village $0.12 $12.00 $14.93



*Per$1,000 of taxable valuation. **Total combined assessed valuation for all four East Multnomah County jursisdictions 2010.

Estimated Revenue and Cost of Regional Park District Levy

Business Cost/Year/

$100k/ Tax Value

Cost /Year/ Avg. Home ***

$8,541,381,664 $1,024,966

***Based on assessed home value for each jurisdiction. (Gresham taxable value is about 70% of market value, the other jurisdictions taxable value is 90%)

$8,541,381,664 $2,135,345



4

Local Option Taxable Annual Levy* Valuation** Revenue $0.10 $6,651,921,126 $665,192 $10.00 $16.00 $0.15 $6,651,921,126 $997,788 $15.00 $24.00 $0.25 $6,651,921,126 $1,662,980 $25.00 $40.00 $0.30 $6,651,921,126 $1,995,576 $30.00 $48.00 $0.40 $6,651,921,126 $2,660,768 $40.00 $64.00 $0.50 $6,651,921,126 $3,325,961 $50.00 $80.00

*Per $1,000 of taxable valuation. **Total assessed valuation for 2010. ***Based on median home real market value of $230,000 ($160,000 taxable value)

Cost/Year/$100K Taxable Value\


Estimated Revenue and Cost of Local Option Levy

Assumes a 20-year bond issues at 5.0% Interest Rate

Total Assessed Valuation (AV)=6,651,921,126

Annual Cost/ Year/$100K Cost/ Ave./

Bond Issue Debt Svce Taxable Value Household*

10,000,000 $802,426 0.12 $12.06 $19.30

12,500,000 $1,003,032 0.15 $15.08 $24.13

15,000,000 $1,203,639 0.18 $18.09 $28.95

25,000,000 $2,006,065 0.30 $30.16 $48.25

Gresham Bond Financing Costs

Bond Levy

*Based on median home value of $230,000 ($160,00 taxable value)

It is important to iterate that there are no magic bullets out there that on their own lead to a fully-funded system. It is quite rare to see a one-mechanism solution (the exception being very small towns). The mantra of “starting small and building” is quite applicable in analyzing park funding options, and the ideas of collaboration and creative partnerships and the building of a funding quilt with multiple funding sources are the most successful way to begin to build a fully-funded system. The local funding options considered in this report are as follows and a full analysis of most of these options begins on Page 16:

The Most Common Funding Options in Oregon

1. Property Tax, or Local Option Levy, for either operation and maintenance or capital projects. An operation levy may be imposed for a maximum of five years, while a capital project levy may be imposed for the lesser of the useful life or ten years. A simple majority of voters must approve the local option levy at either a general or primary election. Additionally, in the recent May, 2010 primary election, Measure 68, which allows school districts to issue bonds for capital improvements, was passed by voters. This has the potential for collaboration between the City and the School District in that school districts will now have



5

the capability of bonding to purchase lands for recreation and athletics. It’s becoming increasingly common for cities and school districts to share fields.

2. General Obligation Bond proceeds that may be used for land acquisition or park and open space capital projects, but not for operation and maintenance purposes. A general obligation bond must be approved by a simple majority of voters at either a general or primary election.

More Complex Funding Options to Implement in Oregon

3. Park and Recreation Districts may levy property taxes and issue general obligation bonds. Formation of a park and recreation district requires petition to the County Commissioners by 15% of registered voters within the proposed district. A simple majority of voters must approve district bonds, but the district can authorize an annual property tax levy without a vote, based on the permanent rate established at the district’s formation.

Council-Mandated Funding Options (without a public vote)

4. Park Utility Fees are usually assessed on raterpayers’ utility bills, for parks, open space and maintenance. Currently, Medford is the only city in Oregon to use this fee.

5. City Park and Recreation Fees could be assessed or increased to generate more revenue for parks,

trails and open space. However, any new assessment or increase to the fees must be balanced against the affordable provision of park and recreation services to Gresham residents, and the cost of establishing a collection system.

6. System Development Charges (or SDCs) are used to construct new public facilities that allow for community growth, and to pay for debt on previously constructed growth-related facilities. The City has a Parks Fund that accounts for projects to expand or improve Gresham’s public parks funded with revenues from SDCs, grants, and two previous bond measures. Expenditures are for capital improvements to existing parks, the Springwater Trail and other hiking trail projects, and acquisition of land for open spaces. SDCs are applied to all new development, but the fees can only fund capacity enhancement projects that are needed as a result of the development. Gresham currently charges a $3,837 Park SDC per dwelling unit within the City, and additionally there are Parks SDCs for Pleasant Valley ($8,137) and Springwater ($9,039).

7. Urban Renewal Agencies raise funds through tax increment financing for blighted area revitalization (property taxes and bonds) but those funds have not been dedicated specifically for parks purposes (though park and recreation facilities are often part of the urban renewal plan).

Unproven Funding Options

8. Restaurant and Prepared Foods Tax is within the discretion of the City to enact. Typically the tax is a set percentage of gross sales. Currently only Ashland and Yachats (both destination communities that produce revenue based on tourism) have one.



6

9. Specific Tax, or a tax imposed as a fixed sum on residential and/or commercial units for park, trail and open space purposes. A charter amendment approved by a simple majority of city voters is required.

Not all 9 types of funding options are realistic for Gresham, but merely show the breadth of legally available funding mechanisms. Throughout Oregon (and most of the West), the two most frequently used funding mechanisms for parks purposes are a property tax levy and a general obligation bond. Certainly for Gresham, those are two mechanisms that should be part of any initial public-opinion survey that is our next step. Voters typically are familiar with each of these two mechanisms, cutting down on the amount of education that need be done in a campaign, which allows a potential campaign to instead focus on the merits of the ballot measure rather than the instrument.

Revenue Generation Potential As mentioned, in the West, TPL uses a rule of thumb that voters typically will support an average per-household increase to their taxes of $50/year. Based on that number, the revenue generation for each option looks like this: Property tax: A $0.30 operating levy would generate about $2 million in annual revenue (before discounts and delinquencies), costing a $100,000 house (real market value) $21/year, and the average household (based on the real market value median of $230,000) $48/year. Again, an operating levy has a lifespan of five years, generating in total almost $10 million.

General Obligation Bond: A $25 million bond measure would cost a $100,000 house $21/year and the average household $48.25/year over the life of the bond, which usually is 20 years.

Regional Park and Recreation District: A $0.25 property tax levy would generate roughly $2.1 million/year at an annual household cost ranging from $31 to $53 (Troutdale being on the high end, Wood Village on the low end).

Park Utility Fee: A $4/month/residential and commercial fee would generate over $2.1 million annually, and cost the average ratepayer $48/year. Revenue Bonds: After identifying an existing revenue stream to repay the bond, Council has the discretion to issue a bond. A $25 million revenue bond over 20 years would have an annual debt service of just over $2 million. Specific Tax: Assessed as a fixed sum per dwelling and/or commercial unit, it’s neither a property tax nor does value of the dwelling apply. The sum is up to the discretion of Council. If Gresham proposed a $50 per unit tax it could generate over $2.2 million annually based on the current number of residential units in the city of 41,300.

City Park and Recreation Fees: Up to the discretion of Council.

SDCs: The City currently has $1.5 million in the Parks SDC Fund, and charges a $3,837 SDC/dwelling unit within Gresham. Additionally, there are Parks SDCs for Pleasant Valley ($8,137) and Springwater ($9,039). Because SDC revenue fluctuates greatly, as they’re dependent on the



7

housing market, it’s impossible to predict what an increase in SDCs would generate without doing extensive market studies. It should be noted, however, that because SDCs can be used ONLY to fund growth-related improvements, SDCs can rarely be used to fund an entire project.

Urban Renewal Agencies: Up to the discretion of Council.

Finance Mechanism Comparisons Again, based on the rule of thumb of voter tax tolerance being roughly $50/household/year, here is a chart that shows the finance options at that rate. The charts below are based on $6.65 billion in assessed valuation.

Mechanism Rate Estimated RevenueEstimated Annual

Cost

Property Tax $0.3 / $1,000 value $1,995,576 $48/Avg Home

Bond $25,000,000 total$2 m debt service /

year for 20 years$48/Avg Home

Regional Park & Rec

District Prop. Tax$0.25 / $1,000 value $2,135,345

Range $31 - $53 / Avg

Home

Park Utility Fee $4 / month $2,121,600 $48 / unit

Specific Tax $50 / unit $2,065,000 $50 / unit

Potential Finance Mechanisms - Compared at approx. $50 / household / year

Another way of comparing funding options is to base them all on generating $1 million. The following chart shows that:

Mechanism Rate Estimated RevenueEstimated Annual

Cost

Property Tax $0.15 / $1,000 value $997,788 $24/Avg Home

Bond $12,500,000 total$1 m debt service /

year for 20 years$24/Avg Home

Regional Park & Rec

District Prop. Tax$0.12 / $1,000 value $1,024,966

Range $15 - $25 /

Avg Home

Park Utility Fee $2 / month $1,060,800 $24 / unit

Specific Tax $23 / unit $1,016,600 $23 / unit

Potential Finance Mechanisms - Compared at approx. $1 m / year revenue

Viability Assessment In terms of viability, there are several options that are less viable due to the politics either in the City, during a potential campaign, or because of complexity. These options, listed below, should be considered to be “off the table”, as they most likely bring more trouble than the revenue generated would be worth.



8

City Economics Viability

-Utility license fees are not viable simply because of the other vital City services that would be impacted. -City park and recreation fees are less viable because while they place the burden on those who use the system, that burden quickly becomes burdensome to the average user while not delivering a lot of revenue.

Election Viability

-Restaurant taxes immediately draw well-funded, organized opposition from The Oregon Restaurant Association, which opposes all restaurant taxes, and therefore are not recommended. -Specific taxes tend to draw well-funded, organized opposition from realtors’ associations, land developers and homebuilders, who feel that such unfairly burden the sale of real property in perpetuity (as opposed to operating levies, which exist only for 5 years at a time). This is also a consideration for City Council, as a Gresham-only specific tax on real property gives surrounding areas a competitive advantage.

Complexity Viability

-Urban Renewal Agencies are less viable because not only have they never been used in Oregon for dedication strictly for parks and recreation purposes, they are complex in designating the boundaries. Realistically to achieve the City’s goal of funding the Parks system, the entire City would need be considered an urban renewal agency, but only 15% of property area within the city (and it has to be designated a blighted area) can legally be defined as undergoing urban renewal; in order to meet the City’s needs, there would have to be consecutive agencies set up throughout the City over many years. 1

Other viability concerns

-Revenue Bonds should be outside our discussion as they are completely up to the discretion of Council. Elected officials tend not to favor the issuance of revenue bonds, as they’re often viewed by voters as unfair. More importantly, there currently is no available sustainable revenue for repayment.

-SDCs should be outside our discussion for several reasons. Their fluctuating nature (based on housing and the economy) make them unreliable, they can only be used for growth-related capital projects, and by themselves don’t generate enough revenue. That being said, SDC increases should always be considered as part of the overall funding package.

1 Urban Renewal Agencies are subject to voter approval



9

Report Recommendations for Polling

The Task Force should realistically discuss the remaining four options: the property tax levy, general obligation bonding, a park district, and a park utility fee.

This feasibility report is meant to inform the City of Gresham’s consideration of new funding for land conservation and other improvements by providing revenue projections and analysis of various funding options. Next steps should include matching a funding source to the needs identified by the city and testing voter attitudes toward a specific set of funding proposals. TPL recommends conducting a public opinion survey that tests ballot language, tax tolerance, and program priorities of voters in Gresham.



10

Fiscal Portrait The City of Gresham’s 2010-11 proposed operating and capital budget is $175.7 million. General Fund on-going resources of $44.3 million are largely comprised of tax revenue ($23.3 million or 52.7% from property taxes, and $4.0 million or 9% from other Business Income and Hotel/Motel taxes). Other revenues include utility license fees ($7 million or 16%), State Shared Revenue ($2.5 million or 6%), and other fees and charges for service ($7.5 million or 16.8%) comprise the balance of the General Fund on-going resources.

Operating expenditures for the General Fund total $45.2 million. Public safety, comprised of Police and Fire services, is the largest component of this budget ($41 million or 91%). Environmental Services-Parks Division has budgeted expenditures of $2.4 million or 5.3% of the operating budget. The General Fund also supports the City’s planning function.

The 2010-11 budget represents a budget that has clearly suffered from the effects of the economic recession. Due to a steep decline in the Business Income Tax (-34%) since 2007/2008, a greater decline in System Development Charges (SDCs, -75% in 2007/2008), and a decline in development fees (-65 – 70%), virtually every City service is operating with less revenue.

In tough economic climates, Parks budgets often face even greater challenges than many other City service budgets, as maintenance costs that get deferred disproportionately grow over time; in other words, without ongoing maintenance to keep those assets current, the backlog to maintain them begins to grow exponentially. That, combined with higher uses during economic downturns (as more citizens look to inexpensive or free entertainment) and current service levels that are well-below national standards, cuts to the Gresham Parks budget puts an enormous, and unsustainable strain on Gresham’s Parks assets.

When analyzing the existing and future needs of the whole Parks program, it’s estimated that the actual cost to fully fund Gresham’s parks program is about $292.6 million. This includes revenue for land acquisition and park development (about $250 million to bring Gresham’s acres per 1,000 residents from 1.3 acres to the national standard of 10), revenue to tackle the growing maintenance backlog (currently about $32 million), and revenue for major facility additions ($10 million).

Obviously, with a projected yearly budget of $2.4 million, it’s unimaginable to envision Gresham reaching a fully funded parks program unless other revenue is identified. Without that revenue, Gresham Parks is on course to becoming a failing, unsustainable system that will result in degraded parks and unsafe facilities.



11

Fortunately, the City of Gresham has taken the initiative to focus resources and attention on solving this issue. By convening the Green Ribbon Task Force, the City has marshaled the energy of key stakeholders within the City to work together on blueprinting a plan. Additionally, Gresham has a strong host of active citizens who are passionate about Gresham’s parks, natural resources and lands. All of this is crucial to a successful implementation of the plan that emerges.

Demographics Gresham, the fourth-largest city in Oregon, continues to grow, with an average annual growth rate of 2.6% since 1990, though it has slowed since 2000. While growth usually brings added revenue into the system, it also adds expense. Particularly during the economic downturn the cost of funding vital City services to the growing population has produced a significant strain on the City’s budget, and certainly within the Parks system.

Income

There has been an eastward poverty trend that has clearly been exacerbated by the current recession. Further, between 2000 and 2008, East County has seen a 5% increase in the number of residents below 200% of the poverty level ($42,000 for a family of four), and East County is tied with Mid County in the percent of uninsured residents (20%). The 2003-2005 median household income in Gresham was $44,560. After adjusting for inflation, this median income represents a 14% decline from 1999. Gresham’s median income has generally been slightly above county and state levels. The Multnomah County median income in 2004 was $42,334, and the state median income was $42,568 (U.S. Census Bureau). It should be no surprise that income levels affect park usage, particularly in a bad economy. When residents are faced with escalating costs in enjoying recreation, entertainment, and physical health, they turn to parks. Not only are parks generally free, they are usually either within close walking, biking or public transit proximity, or a short car ride which saves residents from escalating gas costs.

Age Growth

Growth from 1990 to 2005 has been pronounced among children (0 to 19 years old), young adults (20 to 29 years old), and mature adults (45 to 64 years old). Children have made up over 30% of Gresham’s population since the 90s, more than the percentage in both Multnomah County and the Portland-Metro area. Among children, the fastest-growing group will be teens age 15 to 19, a group projected to grow by 19% between 2005 and 2020. Children age 10 to 14 will grow nearly as fast, by 18.9%. Obviously Gresham’s growth in terms of age has a big effect on park usage: An increase in the number of children equates directly to an increase in park usage, whether it’s toddlers using playgrounds, middle-schoolers using sports fields, or young adults using recreation and sports programming.



12

The correlation between public safety and an active parks population amongst children is well documented. Well-maintained parks lower crime rates and reduce juvenile delinquency. Additionally, according to The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the estimated cost of housing one teenager in detention for one year is nearly $30,000. Building and maintaining parks costs a fraction of what it costs to build new prisons and incarcerate young people.

And certainly the correlation between public health and an active parks population amongst children is well documented as well. According to the Centers for Disease Control, an estimated 17% of children between the ages of 2 and 19 are obese. Additionally, obese children and adolescents are more likely to become obese as adults. For example, one study found that approximately 80% of children who were overweight at 10–15 years old were obese adults at age 25. Another study found that 25% of obese adults were overweight as children. The latter study also found that if overweight begins before 8 years of age, obesity in adulthood is likely to be more severe. Key recommendations from the CDC Report “Recommended Community Strategies and Measurements to Prevent Obesity in the United States” include the need for communities to increase opportunities for extracurricular physical activity, the need for communities to create safe communities that support physical activity and the need for communities to improve access to outdoor recreation facilities.

Ethnicity

Gresham has grown more racially and ethnically diverse since 1990, as people of color increased from 8% of the population to more than 25% in 2005. The city’s Latino population has more than quadrupled (particularly within the Rockwood Neighborhood) and the number of African American residents in Gresham has grown significantly since the 90s. It is likely that populations of color will continue to grow due to both migration and births. Latino births have grown steadily, from 10% of all births in 1990, to 33% in 2000, to 42% in 2004. Births to white non-Hispanic mothers, by contrast, have steadily fallen. With a rising Hispanic and Latino population comes an increase in parks usage, as typically these ethnic groups tend to use parks more than others and support funding them to a greater degree than white populations, according to all recent polling.

Housing Type

Gresham’s mix of household types has changed little over recent years. In 2000, 51.8% of Gresham’s housing units were single-family and 43.5% were multi-family. That year, Gresham had a considerably lower share of single-family units and a considerably larger share of multifamily units than both Multnomah County and the Portland metro area. Since then, Gresham has leveled out to the regional average – about the same as Portland and Hillsboro in terms of its inventory of multifamily housing and below Beaverton. These numbers impact park usage in that multi-family households tend to take more advantage of park systems to make up for the lack of yards that single-family households tend to have at their disposal.



13

These demographics all point towards a heavy and increasing demand on the Gresham Parks system, and with that system continuing to head towards crisis, it further augments the need to find stable, continuing public funding for Gresham Parks.



14

Parks and Recreation in Gresham

Within the general fund, Gresham has allocated about $2.5 million annually over the past four years to Environmental Services including City parks management. The FY2009-2010 budget reduced staffing in the parks development, management and maintenance programs. The emphasis of the Park Department will for the time-being focus on maintaining existing park facilities and completing existing development projects. The strategic planning for the future of the City’s park system will now be performed by planning staff in the Urban Design and Planning Fund. 2 This includes overall system planning and parks planning and design. Park maintenance and operations reside with the Department of Environmental Services. The City of Gresham Parks and Recreation Division provides nearly 1,200 acres of park land at 54 sites. This includes over 240 acres of neighborhood and citywide parks (community parks, special use, and urban plazas). While some of these park sites are developed, almost half are not. The City’s inventory takes into account approximately 120 acres at planned park sites (which have been acquired but not developed). The City’s inventory also includes more than 950 acres of natural areas, greenways and trails. 3

In 2009, the City released a draft of its comprehensive parks and recreation, trails and natural areas master plan. In addition to community needs such as park maintenance and renovation, the Plan listed the following parkland acquisition and development priorities: 4

Development of ten vacant park sites that have been acquired. Many of these were acquired long ago for park development, but they still remain vacant due to lack of funding. These undeveloped parks include five neighborhood parks, two community parks, and three special-use areas.

Ten additional neighborhood parks and two community parks are needed to serve areas that are currently unserved. These new sites will have to be acquired and developed to meet needs in identified areas.

Approximately 28 sites need to be acquired and developed in order to achieve plans for Pleasant Valley, Springwater and Downtown. This requires a more aggressive acquisition strategy than is suggested for the rest of the City.

According to the City and using formulas based on the estimated average cost to maintain, improve, and develop parks, the City would need more than $300 million in capital funds (about $68 million for land acquisitions),5 as well as about $5.5 million annually for maintenance. In addition, the City should

be setting another $6 million aside annually as part of a capital replacement fund. 6 Funds for capital

projects and operations have dropped considerably in the last year. According to a financial analysis, capital and operations funding may now be less than half of recent budgets. Support from the largest

2 City of Gresham FY2009-2010 Budget Message http://greshamoregon.gov/city/city-departments/finance-and-management/budget-division/template.aspx?id=16474 3 Ibid. 4 Excerpted from the City of Gresham Comprehensive Parks and Recreation, Trails and Natural Areas Master Plan, March 2009 5 Ibid. Page 53 6 Ibid.

http://greshamoregon.gov/city/city-departments/finance-and-management/budget-division/template.aspx?id=16474

http://greshamoregon.gov/city/city-departments/finance-and-management/budget-division/template.aspx?id=16474



15

funding sources, including park system development charges (SDCs), intergovernmental revenue, general fund monies, and grants (especially those that require matching funds) has diminished to the point that maintaining the existing park system at 2009’s level of service is not financially feasible.

TOP 25 PRIORITIES

The City has also outlined its top 25 realistic projects which include some acquisitions, development, capital replacement, and recreational programs. The projects are expected to cost $5 million annually over 20 year. In addition to the top 25 projects, capital replacement projects are expected to cost about $1 million annually and annual maintenance would run about $2.5 million annually. Planning and design would also need to be taken into account, but this could be financed through the current parks budget. The total cost of these improvements are expected to be about $99.6 million with an annual need of $8.5 million in additional funds.

In the 2010-2011 proposed budget the City has committed to a “Parks Futures” Work Plan item, now called “Our Parks, Our Future,” that will explore the increasing needs of the Gresham parks system and the benefits of a robust system.



16

Local Parks, Trails and Open Space Funding Funding sources outlined in this section include voter-approved property taxes, bonds, and the creation of special districts that serve as financing mechanisms.7 Other funding mechanisms that are used in Oregon and that do not require voter approval include utility license fees, park and recreation user fees, and system development charges. This report also analyzes mechanisms traditionally not utilized for parks and open space, specifically the specific tax and urban renewal funds. Appendix C to this report contains a chart summarizing these local funding mechanisms.

In terms of funding mechanisms that require approval by the electorate or by property owners, since 1988 there have been over 30 conservation finance measures in Oregon 8 mostly comprised of the following:

25 general obligation bond measures, of which 14 were approved by voters;

4 property tax measures for special districts, of which voters rejected all four;9

1 statewide measure that dedicated lottery proceeds to parks, beaches, wildlife and watershed protection (Measure 66) that was approved by Oregon voters. 10

Appendix A of this report contains a chart summarizing these conservation finance ballot measures for parks and open space throughout Oregon.

Property Taxes In most cities in Oregon, property tax is the primary source of revenue and funds only local (not state) government programs. Property taxes raised more than $5 billion for local governments in fiscal year 2009-10, a slight increase from the previous year.11 The increase is primarily attributable to growth in assessed property values and to growth in local option levies. Schools receive the largest share of property tax revenue (42 percent of the total), followed by cities (22 percent), counties (19 percent), and special districts (13 percent). 12

Property taxes are composed of four primary parts:

7 Nationwide, other common funding sources include the sales tax and real estate transfer taxes. However, Oregon does not impose a sales tax and local jurisdictions in Oregon are prohibited from imposing a real estate transfer tax. §306.815. 8 Measures which include funding for new land acquisition. 9 These figures include measures which include funding for new land acquisitions. There are most likely many more local option levy measures that have been voted upon in Oregon just for operation and maintenance which TPL only loosely tracks. 10 There is a strong likelihood that Measure 66 will go back to the ballot in November 2010 for renewal 11 Oregon Property Tax Statistics, FY 2009-10, Research Section, Oregon Dept. of Revenue, at 3 to 4 (revised March 2010), http://www.oregon.gov/DOR/STATS/docs/303-405-10/303-405-10.pdf 12 Ibid.

http://www.oregon.gov/DOR/STATS/docs/303-405-10/303-405-10.pdf



17

1. Permanent (operating) rate imposed by counties and municipalities subject to a limitation of $10 per $1,000 of real market value (RMV), under Measure 5 rules. Gresham’s rate is $3.61 per $1,000 of TAV. (Taxable Assessed Value)

2. Local option levies imposed by local taxing districts other than school districts and

which may be imposed for no more than five years, except for a levy for a capital project which may be imposed for the lesser of the expected useful life of the capital project or ten years.13 Capital projects include the acquisition of land.14 Local option levies are subject to the $10 per $1,000 of RMV limitation. In addition, these levies must be approved by a majority of voters. Gresham currently has no local option levies.

3. Bond levies utilized to pay the debt service for bonds and not subject to the $10

per $1,000 of RMV (covered in more detail in the bond section of this report below). Gresham currently has no outstanding general obligation bonds.

4. Urban renewal special levy imposed by an urban renewal agency and not subject to

the $10 per $1,000 of RMV.15 Gresham currently has no urban renewal special levy.

The permanent property tax constitutes 76 percent of all property taxes imposed statewide. Bond levies comprise 14 percent of total property taxes imposed in Oregon. Local option levies and urban renewal levies comprise 6 and 4 percent respectively. As, stated above, the maximum allowable property tax for government operations is $10 per $1,000 of real market value (and $5 for public school funding) and includes local option levies (Measure 5). Property taxes imposed to pay debt service for bonds are not subject to the $10 per $1,000 of real market value limitation. When property tax rates exceed the Measure 5 limitation, the amount of taxes collected are reduced (“compressed”) to conform to Measure 5 limits on a property by property basis. Local option taxes are compressed before all other property tax rates. Districts with local options account for the majority of compression loss. An indepth analysis of a proposed levy would be required to determine the effects of compression on the amount of tax revenue that a levy would actually generate.

13 Or. Const. Art. XI, §11(4) and (8); §§280.040 to .150. 14 §280.060(4)(b). 15 Urban renewal special levies are imposed if the amount of revenue raised from the urban renewal excess value (total assessed value of property in urban renewal area in excess of the base assessed values when the plan areas were established) is below the agency’s revenue raising authority.



18

The Property Tax in Gresham

The property tax generates approximately half of funding for Gresham’s general fund at $22.5 million. In 2009-10, Gresham had a total taxable assessed value of $6.65 billion. 16

Gresham imposes a permanent property tax of $3.6129 per $1,000 of assessed value. As illustrated in the table below, Gresham has one of the lowest property tax rates amongst many Oregon cities.

16 Oregon Property Tax Statistics Supplement, FY 2009-10, (revised March 2010).

City

Property

Tax Rate

per $1,000

of TAV*

Additional

Voter

Approved

Rate *

Amount of

Taxes

Received by

City*

Portland 7.20$ **

-$ 1,152$

Eugene 7.01 0.24 1,159

Albany 6.40 0.95 1,176

Salem 5.83 - 933

Medford 5.30 - 847

Corvallis 5.11 - 817

Lake Oswego 4.97 *** - 795

Springfield 4.74 1.49 997

Oregon City 4.16 - 665

Milwaukie 4.07 - 651

Beaverton 3.88 - 620

Troutdale 3.77 - 602

Hillsboro 3.67 1.72 862

Gresham 3.61 - 578

Fairview 3.49 - 558

+ Based on 2009-10 average residential Taxable Assessed Value

* Excludes bonded debt. TAV = Taxable Assessed Value

** Includes Special Levy for Firefighter & Police Disability and Retirement

*** Inside School District (Lake Oswego has a different rate outside the School District)

Property Tax Comparison

On a home with $160,000 taxable value+



19

Using the Local Option Levy for Parks, Trails and Open Space

Local option levies allow local governments to raise revenue beyond the permanent rate amounts. Gresham tried but failed to receive voter approval for a local option levy to fund park operation and maintenance in 2000. The city of Portland imposed a local option levy for parks operation and maintenance that was approved in November 2002. A similar levy failed in the City of Fairview in 1998. Gresham could once again place a local option levy on the ballot to raise a substantial amount of money on an annual basis for the acquisition, construction, operation and maintenance of parks, trails and open space. A local option levy for operation and maintenance may not exceed five years, while a local option levy for capital projects may not exceed the lesser of the expected useful life of the project or ten years. Without considering any property tax compression, the chart below illustrates the estimated revenue and cost of various local option levies per $1,000 of assessed value as it affects residential properties in the City. For instance, a local option levy of $0.25 could generate an estimated $1.7 million a year at an annual household cost of $40. For every million dollars of annual revenue required, the levy would need to be about $.16 per $1,000 of assessed value. 17

Local Option Taxable Annual Levy* Valuation** Revenue $0.10 $6,651,921,126 $665,192 $7.00 $16.00 $0.25 $6,651,921,126 $1,662,980 $17.50 $40.00 $0.30 $6,651,921,126 $1,995,576 $21.00 $48.00 $0.40 $6,651,921,126 $2,660,768 $28.00 $64.00 $0.50 $6,651,921,126 $3,325,961 $35.00 $80.00 $0.60 $6,651,921,126 $3,991,153 $42.00 $96.00

*Per $1,000 of assessed valuation. **Total assessed valuation for 2010. ***Based on RMV of $230,000 ($160,000 taxable assessed value) Does not take into account delinquencies or discounts currently averaging 6.5 percent for Multnomah County

Cost /Year/$100K Taxable Value


Estimated Revenue and Cost of Local Option Levy

Process for Implementation of Local Option Levy 18

A local option levy may be imposed each year at a substantially uniform rate throughout its imposition period or computed annually.19

17 A column that estimates the tax impact on $100K of taxable value has been included which does not attempt to reflect an average value for any property type, but perhaps it will be useful to business interests as they can calculate up or down from this figure based on the value of

their property. 18 §§280.060 to .090 19 §280.060(1).



20

The ballot title for a measure authorizing the imposition of local option taxes shall contain the following additional statement placed after the question on the ballot title: “This measure may cause property taxes to increase more than three percent.”20

As part of the question, the ballot title for a measure authorizing the imposition of local option taxes must state the length in years of the period during which the proposed local option tax will be imposed and the first fiscal year in which the proposed local option tax will be imposed.21 The ballot title must also contain a statement not exceeding 175 words explaining the chief purpose of the measure, reasons for the measure, and the fiscal details, as follows:22

For levies that are uniform throughout its term, the purpose must also state the total amount of money to be raised by the proposed local option tax, in dollars and cents. If the statement in the ballot title for the measure submitted includes an estimated tax impact, it shall be based on the most current estimate of assessed value from the county assessor. The measure shall bear the statement: “The estimated tax cost for this measure is an ESTIMATE ONLY based on the best information available from the county assessor at the time of estimate.”

For local option levies that are computed each year, the chief purpose must contain an estimate of the total amount of money to be raised for each year of the proposed local option tax, in dollars and cents. If the levy raises more money than estimated, the excess collections above that estimate shall be considered a budget resource for the levy fund in the next fiscal year.

If more than one proposal to impose local option levies is submitted to the electors at the same election, the several ballot measures shall be voted upon separately. However, not more than four separate ballot measures proposing local option levies may be submitted to the electors within a single calendar year.23 Local option levy ballots for capital projects with a term greater than five years must be submitted to the electors separately than local option taxes with a term of five years or less.24

A ballot measure authorizing the local option levy may also state that the taxing district may issue bonds payable from the levy and voter approval of the local option levy constitutes voter approval of the bonds.25

20 §280.070(4). The required statement is not considered for purposes of the word count limitations under Section 250.035, which requires that (i) the caption be not more than 10 words and reasonably identifies the subject of the measure, (ii) the question be not more than 20 words and plainly phrases the chief purpose of the measure so that an affirmative response to the measure corresponds with an affirmative vote on the measure, and (iii) a concise and impartial statement of not more than 175 works summarizing the measure and its major effect. 21 §280.070(5). 22 §280.075. 23 §280.090. 24 §280.060(4)(a). 25 §280.060(5).



21

Bonds To raise funds for capital improvements, such as land acquisition or building construction, counties and cities may issue bonds. In Oregon, there are three types of bonds: (1) general obligation (“GO”) bonds, which are guaranteed by the local taxing authority; (2) limited tax bonds; and (3) revenue bonds that are paid by project-generated revenue or a dedicated revenue stream such as a particular tax or fee. Generally, bond proceeds are limited to capital projects and may not be used for operations and maintenance purposes.26 As such, funding alternatives for operation and maintenance costs, such as a property tax, specific tax, local improvement district assessment, or general fund allocation, would need to be considered.

General obligation bonds27

With the passage of Measure 5 in 1990 and Measure 50 in 1997 by Oregon voters, general obligation indebtedness is restricted to voter-approved capital construction or capital improvements.28 To pay the debt service on these bonds, bond levies may be imposed. Such bond levies are not subject to compression.

Cities in Oregon are statutorily limited to a legal debt margin of three percent of the real market value of all taxable property within its boundaries, after deducting from outstanding bonds such cash funds and sinking funds as are applicable to the payment of the principal thereof.

Gresham presently has no general obligation bonds outstanding. As of 2010, however, Gresham is well below the legal debt margin of approximately $346 million.

Gresham voters approved an open space bond for $10.25 million in November 1990 that was paid off in June 2009. Communities in Oregon that have approved the issuance of general obligation bonds for park, recreation and open space purposes include Corvallis, Eugene, Metro, Lake Oswego, Roseburg, Silverton, West Linn, Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District and Cannon Beach. At the November 2008 election, voters in the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District approved a $100 million GO bond for open space, parks and trails.

Issuing GO Bonds for Parks, Trails and Open Space

In 1988, Gresham voters approved a $4.5 million bond for park purposes, including acquisition and improvements. The measure passed with 51 percent support and a margin of 359 votes. And as mentioned previously, in November 1990, the city of Gresham asked its voters to approve a $10.25 million open space bond, and won with 59 percent support.

26 Federal regulations governing the issuance of tax-exempt bonds limit the use of proceeds to capital purposes such that only a small fraction (up to five percent) of bond funds may be used for operation and maintenance directly related to the funded facilities. Treasury Reg. 1.148-6(d)(3)(ii)(A)(5). State and local laws may further limit the use of bond proceeds. In Oregon, general obligation bonds may not be used for maintenance and repairs and supplies and equipment not intrinsic to the capital project. Or. Const. Art. XI, §11(11). 27 §§287.001 to .146. 28 Or. Const. Art. XI, §11(5), (11), (13); Or. Const. Art. XI, §11b(2)(d).



22

Gresham could consider asking its voters to approve a park, trail, and open space general obligation bond. The chart below illustrates the estimated annual debt service, required bond levies (property tax increase), and annual household cost of various general obligation bond issue amounts. For example, a $25 million general obligation bond has a debt service of $2 million a year. For every million dollars of a bond issue it would cost the typical home in Gresham about $9.65. 29

Assumes a 20-year bond issued at 5.0% Interest Rate

Total Assessed Valuation (AV)= 6,651,921,126

Annual Cost/ Year/$100K Cost/ Avg./

Bond Issue Debt Svce Taxable Value Household**

$1,000,000 $401,213 0.06 $4.22 $9.65

$10,000,000 $802,426 0.12 $8.44 $19.30

$15,000,000 $1,203,639 0.18 $12.67 $28.95

$25,000,000 $2,006,065 0.30 $21.11 $48.25

$45,000,000 $3,610,916 0.54 $38.00 $86.85

$50,000,000 $4,012,129 0.60 $42.22 $96.50

Gresham Bond Financing Costs

Prop. Tax Increase*

Does not include exemptions.

*Per 1,000 of assessed valuation

**Based on RMV of $230,000 ($160,000 assessed value)

The property tax estimates assume that the city would raise property taxes to pay the debt service on bonds.30 This annual property tax on property owners will decline slightly as the tax base grows with new construction and annexations. The property tax is subject to Measure 50, which limits the increase in assessed values to three percent a year. The tax base may not increase annually to reflect increases in the valuation of real property in the city.

Though GO bonds can help acquire or develop park lands, they can not pay for ongoing operations and maintenance costs.

29 A column that estimates the tax impact on $100K of taxable value has been included which does not attempt to reflect an average value for any property type, but perhaps it will be useful to business interests as they can calculate up or down from this figure based on the value of

their property. 30 §287.007 (“Notwithstanding any other law, the governing body of each city… shall ascertain and levy annually, in addition to all other taxes, a direct ad valorem tax on all the taxable property within the city…that….will be sufficient to pay when due the principal and interest on all outstanding general obligation bonds issued by the city….”).



23

Process for implementation of GO Bonds

The governing body of the city may, without a charter amendment, issue bonds upon approval of the majority of electors voting upon the question of issuance.31 The bond ballot title must contain the following statement immediately after the ballot title question:32

__________________________________________________________________ Question: (herein the question is stated) If the bonds are approved, they will be payable from taxes on property or property ownership that are not subject to the limits of sections 11 and 11b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. __________________________________________________________________

The ballot title statement must also contain a reasonably detailed, simple and understandable description of the use of proceeds. If the bond election is to be conducted by mail, the front of the outer envelope in which the ballot title is mailed shall state, clearly and boldly printed in red, “CONTAINS VOTE ON PROPOSED TAX INCREASE.” A majority of registered voters must vote on the bond measure, except for measures on the ballot of general elections in even-numbered years in which case majority approval of the bond measure is required. As mentioned earlier in the property tax section, a ballot measure authorizing a local option levy may also state that the taxing district may issue bonds payable from the levy and voter approval of the local option levy constitutes voter approval of the bonds.

31 §287.004. 32 §250.037. Section 250.035 also requires that the ballot title of any measure, other than a state measure, to be initiated and referred must consist of a (i) caption that is not more than 10 words and reasonably identifies the subject of the measure, (ii) a question that is not more than 20 words and plainly phrases the chief purpose of the measure so that an affirmative response to the measure corresponds with an affirmative vote on the measure, and (iii) a concise and impartial statement of not more than 175 words summarizing the measure and its major effect.



24

Special Districts In Oregon, counties and cities may establish a special district (or local service district) to provide additional services, including parks and recreation services, and to finance their activities. A park and recreation district is the only special district available to cities in Oregon for financing parks and open space.33 It may levy property taxes, impose impact fees, and issue bonds for the purpose of acquiring, constructing and equipping facilities.

Park and Recreation District 34

A community 35 may form a municipal corporation 36 to provide park and recreation facilities for the inhabitants. In Oregon, 46 park and recreation districts exist, with none located in Multnomah County. 37

An elected board comprised of three to five members governs the park and recreation district. A park and recreation district has the power to construct, reconstruct, alter, enlarge, operate and maintain lakes, parks, recreation grounds and buildings; to acquire necessary lands; and to call necessary elections after the formation of the district. In addition, to finance itself, a park and recreation district may levy property taxes and, upon voter approval, issue revenue and general obligation bonds.

Formation of a Park and Recreation District

A park and recreation district may be formed through three methods, as follows:

1. A park and recreation district may be formed by petition38 of all landowners in the proposed district to the county board (defined as the County Commissioners or County Court).39 However, before circulating a petition for formation, the persons designated as the chief petitioners shall complete an economic feasibility statement for the proposed district.40 The economic feasibility statement shall form the basis for the proposed permanent rate limit for operating taxes and must contain (1) a description of the services and functions to be performed or provided by the proposed district; (2) an analysis of the relationships between those services and functions and other existing or needed government services; and (3) a proposed first-year line item operating budget and a projected third-year line item operating budget for the new district that demonstrate its economic feasibility. The county board must approve the

33 A metropolitan service district provides public services, such as park and recreation service, that are not adequately available through previously authorized governmental agencies in metropolitan areas, defined as areas within the boundaries of Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties. §§268.010 to .990. As such, in order for Gresham to create a metropolitan service district (such as Metro in the Portland area), legislative action is necessary. 34 §§266.010 to .550. 35 The relevant statutory chapter does not define a “community.” However, because park and recreation districts may be formed on a less-than-countywide basis, it is assumed that a city may form such a district. 36 A municipal corporation is statutorily defined to means a city; county; special district; corporation which is conferred powers of the state for the purpose of local government; or public corporation, including a cooperative body formed between municipal corporations. §297.405. 37 Oregon Property Tax Statistics Supplement, at 2009-2010. Does not include Portland Metro 38The petition for formation must also state the number of members to be on the district board (three to five members) and the method of election of the board of the proposed district. 39 §198.830. 40 §198.749.



25

petition for formation if it finds that all owners of land within the proposed district have joined the petition and that the area could be benefited by formation of such district. In such case, an election for formation does not need to be held.

2. A park and recreation district may be formed by petition of electors within the proposed district. An economic feasibility report must be prepared prior to submission of the petition. A petition for formation shall be signed by not less than either (a) fifteen percent of the electors or 100 electors, whichever is the greater, registered in the territory subject to the petition or (b) fifteen owners of land or the owners of 10 percent of the acreage, whichever is the greater number of signers, within the territory subject to the petition.41

3. In the alternative, the county board may initiate the formation of a district, to be located entirely within the county, by an order setting forth its intention to initiate the formation of a district, the name and boundaries of the proposed district, and the date, time and place of a public hearing on the proposal.42

If formed pursuant to the second or third options above, the county board must hold a public hearing to consider formation of the district. A formation election must be held if at least fifteen percent of the electors or 100 electors, whichever is the lesser number, registered in the proposed district, file written requests for a formation election on or before the date of the public hearing OR the petition for formation includes a permanent rate limit for operating taxes or a property tax for bonds. If no requests are made for an election or the petition does not include a provision for taxes, the county board may approve or reject the formation of the district at the conclusion of the public hearing. When the proposal for formation includes a permanent rate limit for the proposed district, the district shall be authorized to impose operating taxes not in excess of the permanent rate limit if the proposal is approved by a majority of the votes cast.43 The question on incurring bonded indebtedness may be approved only if electors approve formation of the district, and the ballot measure must clearly state that the bonded indebtedness may be approved only if electors approve formation of the district.

Property Taxes Imposed By a Park and Recreation District

The property tax fixed by the board may not exceed the permanent rate limitation approved by voters at the formation election. Property taxes levied by a park and recreation district will result in increased tax revenue compression that affects all general government taxing districts. The district may also levy an additional property tax for the payment of debt service on bonds.44 Each year, the district board determines and fixes the amount of money to be levied and raised by property taxes. However, the revenue generated from the property tax may not exceed one-half of one percent (0.005%) of the real market value of all taxable property within

41 §198.755. 42 §198.835. 43 §198.815. 44 Five of the 46 park and recreation districts in Oregon levy additional property taxes for debt service on bonds.



26

the district.

Issuance of Bonds by a Park and Recreation District

A park and recreation district may also issue general obligation or revenue bonds to provide funds for the acquisition of land, for land improvements and development of parks and recreation grounds, and for capital recreation facility construction and improvements. The issuance of general obligation and revenue bonds must be approved by a majority of those voting at an election called for that purpose. The bond election may be called by the district board on its own resolution or must be called by the board when a petition specifying the

bond is filed.45

The aggregate amount of general obligation bonds issued and outstanding at any one time shall not exceed two and one-half percent (2.5%) of the real market value of all taxable property of the district. For example, a park and recreation district that encompassed the entire city of Gresham would have a general obligation bond limitation of about $288 million. General obligation bonds issued by a park and recreation district must mature within 30 years from the date of issuance.

Revenue bonds are issued in the same manner and form as general obligation bonds of the district but are not subject to a debt limitation. Revenue bonds are payable from revenues only, meaning all or any part of the unobligated net revenue of the district or a recreational facility of the district.

In summation, should Gresham consider the formation of a park and recreation district within the city boundaries, such district could theoretically levy property taxes to generate a maximum of $57.6 million and could issue a maximum of $288 million in general obligation bonds. Such an outcome is highly unlikely, however, since the entire City doesn’t collect nearly that amount.

Park and Recreation District Bond Elections46

Regular district elections occur in each odd-numbered year on the third Tuesday in May. Special district elections must take place on the

second Tuesday in March;

third Tuesday in May;

third Tuesday in September; or

first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Specific to bond elections, the district elections authority must deliver to the elections officer a notice stating the date of the election and a ballot title not later than the 61st day47 before the district bond election. The notice must include (i) the purpose for which the bonds are to be

45 The requirements for preparing, circulating and filing a petition must follow the procedure for an initiative petition, as contained in §§255.135 to .205. 46 §§255.005 to .345. 47 For a bond measure on the November ballot, the notice must be delivered on the 47th day prior to the election.



27

used; (ii) the amount and the term of the bonds; (iii) the kind of bonds proposed to be issued, and (iv) a statement that an elector may file a petition for review48 of the ballot title no later than the seventh day after the ballot title is filed with the elections officer. In addition, the elections officer must publish the notice in the next available edition of a newspaper of general circulation in the district after the deadline for filing the notice. The district elections authority shall prepare the ballot title for the bond measure with the assistance of the district attorney for the county or an attorney employed by the district elections authority. A majority of voters in the district must approve the issuance of general obligation or revenue bonds.

East Multnomah County Regional Park District

The municipalities that make up East Multnomah County include Gresham, Fairview, Troutdale, and Wood Village. If these municipalities decided to create a regional park district they would follow the procedures mentioned above.

Without considering any property tax compression, the chart below illustrates the estimated revenue and cost of a $0.25 per $1,000 of assessed value property tax as it affects residential properties in each of the four East County jurisdictions. The levy could generate an estimated $2.1 million a year (without factoring in delinquencies and discounts) at an annual household costs ranging from $31 to $53. In order to raise $1 million a year the property tax levy would need to be about $0.12 per $1,000. 49

Property Tax Taxable Annual City Levy* Valuation** Revenue



*Per $1,000 of assessed valuation. **Total combined assessed valuation for all four East Multnomah County jursisdictions 2010.

Estimated Revenue and Cost of Regional Park District Levy

Cost /Year/ $100K Tax Value


***Based on assessed home value for each jurisdiction.

$2,135,345 $8,541,381,664

If this option is pursued further analysis must be completed as to the property tax and debt capacity within Fairview, Troutdale and Wood Village.

48 A circuit court reviews the petition of the dissatisfied elector. If the circuit court certifies a different ballot title, the elections officer shall publish an amended notice of election in the next available edition of the newspaper referred to in this subsection after the new title is certified to the elections officer. 49 A column that estimates the tax impact on $100K of taxable value has been included which does not attempt to reflect an average value for any property type, but perhaps it will be useful to business interests as they can calculate up or down from this figure based on the value of

their property.



28

Park Utility Fee A park utility fee is a fee placed on each developed parcel in the jurisdiction that is assessed a per unit/monthly fee. The resident or business paying the City’s water utility charges is the one typically who pays the fee. The fee commences upon connection to the water system, completion, occupancy, or use of improvements; whichever comes first. It must be approved by a simple majority of the City Council.

In 2005, the City of Medford, Oregon implemented a park utility fee for the maintenance of parks, beautification, and right-of-way areas. The amount of $.31 per unit/per month was deemed reasonable and necessary to pay for the operation and maintenance of accepted beautification and right-of-ways within the City. Beginning in February 2007 an additional monthly fee of $2.56 was assessed to be used exclusively for development of the Medford Sports and Community Park. 50 A unit in Medford was defined as a residential dwelling unit, business unit or tenant space. If two dwelling units are associated with the water bill then the charge would be .31 x 2 units, if a business complex has 4 units the charge would be.31 x 4 units. 51

In 2010, the monthly park utility fee of $3.67 generates approximately $1.25 million. The bulk of these revenues, $1.08 million, will be used to repay debt service for a community park and gymnasium, with the remainder used primarily for parks maintenance. 52

A copy of the Medford park utility fee ordinance can be found in the Appendix. If Gresham instituted a park utility fee of $3 per month, it would cost the ratepayer $36 annually and generate almost $1.6 million. To generate $1 million would require a monthly fee of about $2.

Fee/Month/Unit* Annual Cost/Unit Annual Revenue ** $1.00 $12.00 $530,400 $2.00 $24.00 $1,060,800 $3.00 $36.00 $1,591,200 $4.00 $48.00 $2,121,600 $5.00 $60.00 $2,652,000

*Applied to all water utility bills **Based on all commercial and residential units provided by the City of Gresham Total units equal 44,200. 96 percent are residential units.

Potential Gresham Park Utility Fee

50 A further increase of 8 cents was instituted in 2007. 51 http://www.ci.medford.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=1065 52 Oregon Parks and Recreation Magazine, Spring 2010 issue, page 19, by Dan Ganer.

http://www.ci.medford.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=1065



29

Specific Tax Pursuant to its charter authority,53 the City of Gresham could consider asking its voters to approve a charter amendment that authorizes the imposition of a specific tax per dwelling and/or commercial unit to maintain, operate, improve and acquire parks. A specific tax is imposed as a fixed sum on each dwelling and commercial unit, without regard to the value of the dwelling and commercial unit, and is not a property tax.

A specific tax does not appear to be a commonly utilized mechanism in Oregon. In addition, voters in the City of Keizer rejected a specific tax measure for parks in November 2002 (31 percent “yes” votes). The Keizer ballot title stated as follows:

Referred to the People by the City Council

Charter Amendment Approves Tax on Dwellings/Commercial Units for Parks

Question: Shall Charter be amended approving City establishing/collecting specific tax per dwelling/commercial unit to maintain, operate, improve, acquire parks?

Summary: This is a Charter amendment. This measures adds the following paragraph to the Charter: Section 45. PARKS TAX. The City Council by Ordinance may establish and collect a specific tax (not ad valorem tax) per dwelling and commercial unit as that term is defined by the ordinance establishing the specific tax. The revenue raised by this specific tax will be used to maintain, operate, improve and acquire municipal parks. This measure approves of the Keizer City Council establishing and collecting a specific tax. A specific tax is a tax imposed as a fixed sum on each article or item or property of a given class or kind, without regard to its value. The Keizer City Council sets the specific tax by adopting an Ordinance. This specific tax is imposed upon a dwelling and commercial unit as defined in the ordinance establishing the specific tax. The ordinance also establishes the collection procedure. The revenue raised by the specific tax will be used by the City of Keizer to maintain, operate, improve and acquire municipal parks.

If Gresham proposed a $30 per unit tax it could generate almost $1.24 million annually based on the current number of residential units in the city of 41,300. 54

53 “The legal voters of every city and town are hereby granted power to enact and amend their municipal charter, subject to the constitutional and criminal laws of the State of Oregon.” Ore. Const. Art. IV, §1(5). In addition, a municipal corporation may assume powers to impose taxes and to select the kinds of taxes most appropriate in order to provide governmental services. Jarvill v. City of Eugene, 613 P.2d 1, at 19 (Or. 1980). 54 American Factfinder 2006-2008 US Census update. Number does not include commercial units.



30

City Park and Recreation Fees User fees and facility charges generate revenue for parks and recreation by charging users for some or all of the costs of providing services. The amount of such fees is balanced against the fiscal need versus program affordability and accessibility. Park and recreation user fees include park entrance fees, park reservation fees, recreation and aquatic center fees or memberships, boat launch and marina fees, tennis and golf fees, and the sale of goods and services.

User fees generally do not generate sufficient revenue to cover operation and maintenance costs and usually are intended to supplement general revenues, although golf course and tennis user fees often generate enough revenue to support other park operations. For instance, the Glendoveer Golf Course operated by Metro contributes more than $700,000 a year in positive cash flow that is used to offset the operating costs of parks in Metro.55 Portland, Lake Oswego, and Clackamas County also operate golf courses and/or tennis facilities that generate positive cash flows.

Gresham currently charges some fees for picnic areas and sports fields, however the city no longer has a recreation program due to lack of funding, and fee revenue is minimal.

Some other communities in Oregon are able to generate significantly more revenue than Gresham from their user fees, partly due to larger resident populations, golf course and tennis facility fees as well as the provision of a greater variety and quantity of park and recreation services.

Urban Renewal Agency56 An urban renewal agency is a municipal corporation that may exercise its powers when a municipality, by nonemergency ordinance, declares that blighted areas exist in the municipality and that there is need for an urban renewal agency to function. An urban renewal agency develops a plan to revive the blighted area (“urban renewal plan”), which is approved by the City Council, and has the power to acquire land and take actions necessary to fulfill the purposes of the plan, including the ability to borrow money and accept grants and financial assistance for the purposes of undertaking and carrying out urban renewal projects. A municipality may also issue general obligation bonds for the purpose of assisting in the planning or the carrying out of an urban renewal plan.

Urban renewal agencies are funded through tax increment financing. Specifically, any urban renewal plan may contain a provision that the property taxes, if any, levied by a taxing district in which all or a portion of an urban renewal area is located, shall be divided so that the taxes

55 GPAC Finance Report: Part 1--Existing Financial Environment, prepared for Metro Greenspace Policy Advisory Committee. 56 §§457.010 to .460.



31

levied against any increase in the assessed value will be used to pay any indebtedness incurred for the redevelopment or urban renewal project.57 In Oregon, no urban renewal agencies dedicate funds for strictly park and recreation purposes.58 In addition urban renewal funds may not be used for maintenance and operations of parks.

Greshem currently has one urban renewal area within its borders:

1. Rockwood-West Gresham Urban Renewal Area. In November 2003, 54 percent of voters supported the 20-year Rockwood-West Gresham Renewal Plan, which established the 1,211 acre urban renewal area and the Gresham Redevelopment Commission. The Plan has eight goals with clear objectives that guide the actions of the GRDC. One of those goals is to facilitate the development of conveniently located parks and recreation facilities to the Area with strong pedestrian and transit links to residential neighborhoods. In 2007, the Area released The Cultural Marketplace Aspirational Plan which included public open space to be incorporated in development of the site. The public space is envisioned as active, supporting daily life as well as special events, and integral to the overall development. In 2008, the Agency vowed to work with the City of Gresham Parks & Recreation Division to identify alignment of the north end of Gresham Fairview Trail. 59

In August 2009, the Gresham Redevelopment Commission approved Plaza del Sol using urban renewal funds. Plaza del Sol, though not a park facility, is a series of new spaces for gathering and recreating on the former Fred Meyer site in Rockwood. The Plaza will eventually include a walking trail, wildflower meadow, and basketball courts. 60 The question voters faced at the November 2003 election read as follows:

57 Ore. Const. Art. IX, §1c. 58 GPAC Finance Report: Part 1--Existing Financial Environment, prepared for Metro Greenspace Policy Advisory Committee. The City of Wilsonville, located 20 miles south of Portland, has an agreement with a development located within an urban renewal area whereby the developer dedicated park space and maintains the parks for five years. After five years, the city will assume maintenance costs of the parks. 59 Excerpted from State of Renewal Report 2003-2008 60 http://greshamoregon.gov/city/city-departments/urban-renewal/template.aspx?id=18840

http://greshamoregon.gov/city/city-departments/urban-renewal/template.aspx?id=18840



32

System Development Charges (SDCs)61 The City of Gresham uses SDC revenue to construct new public facilities that allow for community growth, and to pay for debt on previously constructed growth-related facilities. The city has a Parks Fund which accounts for projects to expand or improve Gresham's public parks funded with revenues from system development charges, grants, and two previous bond measures - the 1990 Gresham open space bond and the 1995 and 2006 Portland Metro open space bond. Expenditures are for capital improvements to existing parks, the Springwater Trail and other hiking trail projects, and acquisition of land for open spaces. 62

Park SDCs in Gresham 63

Systems development charges (SDCs) are applied to all new development and can be an important source of funding for the acquisition and development of new parks and natural areas. Since SDCs are paid for by new development, the fees can only fund capacity enhancement projects that are

61 §§223.297 to .314. System development charges have been in use in Oregon since the mid-1970s for water and sewer improvements. State legislation regarding SDCs was not adopted until 1989 and limits the used of SDCs to water, wastewater, drainage, flood control, transportation and parks and recreation capital improvements. 62 2009-2010 Gresham Budget 63 Personal Communication with Gresham Finance Staff



33

needed as a result of the development. Gresham currently charges a $3,837 Park SDC per dwelling unit. The rates are $8,137 in the Pleasant Valley District and $9,039 in the Springwater District. 64 Parks SDC revenues vary greatly year to year as they are highly dependent on the housing market in Gresham. The recession and its effect on the housing market are impacting revenues greatly. Over the past 10 years the annual revenue has ranged from $400,000 to $1.1 million a year. The average over the last 10 years is approximately $700,000 a year. Parks SDCs are segregated from other resources. They are held until needed in a separate fund, the SDC fund, then transferred to the Parks fund to be spent. The city currently has $1.5 million on hand. This cash is dedicated to projects and obligations to be spent over the next year or two.

For the current fiscal year Park SDC revenue is less than $100,000. As with the nation, Gresham is predicted to have a slow housing recovery, and does not anticipate revenues will recover for some time. There is some debate over whether Gresham's housing market will actually recover to past levels. The City no longer has the amount of acreage available with accessible infrastructure for the apartments and subdivisions that fueled the SDC revenues of the past decade. As mentioned earlier, because of lack of revenue the parks capital improvement program will close after next fiscal year. Gresham’s methodology to determine SDCs follows state statutes. There is an "improvement fee" that allows the SDC to be charged for capital improvements that increase the capacity of the parks system. It is based on a specific list of planned capital improvement projects. The calculation is determined by dividing the project costs by the increase in population and employment. The employment portion of the SDC fee is negligible.

One of the challenges the city faces is a lack of project financing. SDCs are a primary source of funding. Current parks are inadequate for the existing population. Therefore most of Gresham’s parks projects will serve both existing and future citizens. SDC revenue may only be used to build improvements for future populations. Therefore, projects cannot be 100 percent built with SDC revenues. They must have a second funding source to pay the portion of the project that is judged to be needed by current residents.

64 Parks, stormwater and transportation SDCs are higher in the new urban growth areas of Pleasant Valley and Springwater to reflect the higher costs to extend and construct facilities in those areas.



34

Election Analysis

The next election in Gresham will be the general election on November 2, 2010. 65 At the general election on November 4, 2008, Gresham voters rejected a .97 per $1000 five-year property tax levy for increased police services. However, the city did narrowly support a November 2008, Portland Metro bond of $125 million to protect animal health and safety, and to conserve and recycle water.

At the November 2010 election, Gresham voters will also select a mayor and three city councilors.

Voter Turnout and Registration As of January, 2010, the city of Gresham had 46,308 registered voters. The party affiliation of these registered voters is listed below.

Voter Registration

Party Multnomah

County City of

Gresham Gresham

Percentage

Republican 68,825 13,947 30%

Democrat 233,686 20,278 44%

Unaffiliated 83,117 9,670 21%

Other 21,787 2,413 5%

Totals 407,415 46,308

Gresham has had strong voter turnout for the past several general elections (65 to 83 percent), as illustrated in the table below.

City of Gresham Voter Turnout

Date Regist. Voters Ballots Cast % Turnout

Nov-08 50,566 41,666 82%

May-08 47,347 23,290 49%

Nov-06 46,419 29,956 65%

May-06 46,252 14,234 31%

Nov-04 52,635 43,792 83%

May-04 45,523 16,501 36%

Voter Turnout

65 Primary Election is held on May 18, 2010



35

Election Results Since 2000, voters in the city of Gresham have rejected all five local city finance measures on the ballot, including a local options levy for parks and recreation in November 2000.

Date Measure Finance

mechanism Description Results %Yes Nov-08 26-98 Property tax 5-year, Local option levy for increased police service Fail 46% Nov-00 26-19 Bond $5.775M Fire Facilities Bond Fail 44% Nov-00 26-20 Property tax 5-year, 8 cents per $1000 Park and Recreation Levy Fail 38% Nov-00 26-21 Property tax 5-year, 20 cents per $1000 Community Center Levy Fail 20% Nov-00 26-22 Property tax 11.75 cents per $1000 Operations Levy Fail 20%

City of Gresham Public Spending Election Results Since 2000

A summary of all recent Multnomah County and relevant district finance measures are depicted in the next section. 66 Gresham voters are much more tax averse than the county as a whole, as depicted in the next section. Relevant district measures are contained in the chart below.

66 For purposes of this analysis, included is the 1995 Portland Metro open space. In addition, Gresham is part of three school districts, Centennial, Gresham-Barlow, and Reynolds, all of which have voted on multiple school bonds and operating levies over the past decade.



36

Date Measure Jurisdiction

Finance

mechanism Description

Gresham

Result

Gresham

%Yes

County/

District

Final

Results

County/

District

%Yes

Nov-08 26-96 Portland Metro Bond

$125m Bond to protect

animal health and safety and

conserve and recycle water Pass 50% Pass 60%

Nov-06 26-80 Portland Metro Bond

$227.4M Bond to preserve

natural areas Fail 47% Pass 64%

Nov-06 26-81 County Property Tax

5-year, $.89 cents per $1000

renewal of local tax for

libraries Fail 43% Pass 62%

Nov-04 26-64 County Income Tax

Measure would repeal the

income tax passed by voters

the prior year Pass 65% Fail 48%

Nov-04 26-71

East

Multnomah Soil

and Water

Conservation

District Property Tax

Permanent rate limit of $.10

per $1,000 of assessed value

beginning in FY2005-2006 Pass 58% Pass 64%

May-03 26-48 County Income Tax

3-year, 1.25% income tax for

schools, public safety and

human services Fail 41% Pass 58%

May-95 26-26 Portland Metro Bond

$135.6m Bond to preserve,

open space, parks, protect

streams, fish and wildlife Pass 58% Pass 67%

Multnomah County, District and Related Public Spending Election Results

Finally, recent and related statewide finance measures are listed in the chart below.



37

Date Measure Description

Gresham

Result

Gresham

%Yes

Statewide

Final

Results

Statewide

%Yes

Nov-08 62

Const. Amendment to

allocate 15% of lottery

proceeds to public

safty Fail 47% Fail 39%

Nov-08 56

Const. Amendment to

provide that May and

Nov. property tax

elections are decided

by a majority of voters Pass 54% Pass 57%

Nov-07 50

Const. Amendment to

dedicate funds to

provide healthcare for

children, through

increased toacco tax Fail 38% Fail 41%

Nov-07 49

Modifies Measure 37;

Clarifies right to build

homes; limits large

developments;

protects farms, forests,

groundwater Pass 61% Pass 62%

Nov-06 48

Amend Constitution to

limit increased state

spending based on

percentage increase in

population, plus

inflation Fail 40% Fail 29%

Nov-04 37

Government must pay

owners, or forgo

enforcement, when

land use restrictions

reduces property value Pass 70% Pass 61%

Feb-04 30

Enacts Temporary

Personal Income Tax

Surcharge Fail 25% Fail 41%

Sep-03 29

Amends Constitution:

Authorizes State of

Oregon to Incur

General Obligation

Debt for Savings on

Pension Liabilities Fail 49% Pass 55%

Jan-03 28

Temporary Income tax

increase Fail 43% Fail 46%

Nov-98 66 Lottery funds for parks Pass 69% Pass 67%

Statewide Related Public Spending Election Results



38

RECOMMENDATIONS

TPL recommends not moving forward with a ballot measure on the November,

2010 ballot. Generally speaking, there needs to be a threshold level of support for

a conservation and parks funding measure of roughly 60%. Based on June 2010

public opinion survey results, the voting populace is not yet within striking range of

that number.

TPL recommends that the City of Gresham organize an intensive public education

and awareness campaign within the city to raise support for the concept of a park

and recreation district that would potentially include the other cities within East

County. While no funding mechanism achieved threshold support, the concept of

a park and recreation district garnered more support than the others, and it is our

recommendation that the City focus on educating voters on the details and merits

of a park and recreation district.

TPL recommends that the public education and awareness campaign continue to

display the need for funding Gresham’s parks, recreation and conservation needs,

and detail the ways in which a park and recreation district begins to satisfy those

needs.

TPL recommends that the City spend approximately 10-12 months of intensive

public education and awareness and then conduct another survey to test the

efficacy of the campaign in terms of voter support for a potential parks and

recreation measure.

TPL recommends that the City continue -- and increase -- work with leaders in

Troutdale, Fairview, and Wood Village to coordinate efforts on public education

and awareness of the needs and the ability of a park and recreation district to

begin to satisfy those needs.



39

Appendices

Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey Results FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES JUNE 6-9, 2010

GRESHAM PARKS MEASURE SURVEY 220-2899-WT

N=600 A/B AND C/D SPLITS

Time Began______ Time Ended______ Minutes______

START WITH BOTH THE GRESHAM AND NON-GRESHAM SAMPLES

Hello, I'm ___________ from F-M Three, a public opinion research company. I am definitely NOT trying to sell you anything. We are conducting an opinion survey about issues that interest people living in (GRESHAM SAMPLE: Gresham) (NON-GRESHAM SAMPLE: your community), and we are only interested in your opinions. May I speak to______________? YOU MUST SPEAK TO THE VOTER LISTED. VERIFY THAT THE VOTER LIVES AT THE ADDRESS LISTED, OTHERWISE TERMINATE. Before we begin, could you please tell me if I have reached you on a cell phone? (IF YES: Are you in a place where you can talk safely?) Yes, cell and in safe place -------------------------------------- 9% Yes, cell not in safe place -------------------------- TERMINATE No, not on cell ---------------------------------------------------- 91% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED -------------- TERMINATE 1. In November there will be a general election for Governor, the state legislators, and state and local

ballot measures. I know it is a long way off, but how likely are you to actually vote in this election? Will you definitely vote, probably vote, are the chances 50-50 that you will vote, will you probably not vote, or will you definitely not vote?

Definitely vote--------------------------------- 81% Probably vote --------------------------------- 16% 50-50 ---------------------------------------------- 3% Probably not vote ----------------- TERMINATE Definitely not vote ----------------- TERMINATE (DON'T KNOW/NA) -------------- TERMINATE 2. Would you say that things in your community are generally headed in the right direction or do you feel

that things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track? Right direction -------------------------------- 49% Wrong track ----------------------------------- 34% (DON'T KNOW/NA) ------------------------- 16%


2

NOW LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT A POTENTIAL MEASURE THAT MAY APPEAR ON AN UPCOMING BALLOT.

3. Here is the description of this ballot measure as it may appear on a future ballot:

East Multnomah County Regional Park District Formation. Shall a regional park district be formed with Gresham, Troutdale, Fairview and Wood Village to protect natural areas, water in rivers and streams, and wildlife habitat, create recreation programs, and construct and improve parks and trails, funded by a tax of twenty-five cents per one thousand dollars of assessed value beginning in 2011-2012? If there were an election today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”) GRESHAM NON-GRESHAM OVERALL

TOTAL YES -------------------------------------- 51% ---------------------- 42% ---------------------- 49% Definitely yes ------------------------------------- 21% ---------------------- 18% ---------------------- 20% Probably yes ------------------------------------- 20% ---------------------- 15% ---------------------- 19% Undecided, lean yes ---------------------------- 10% -----------------------9% ------------------------ 9% TOTAL NO --------------------------------------- 44% ---------------------- 49% ---------------------- 45% Undecided, lean no ----------------------------- 4% ------------------------5% ------------------------ 4% Probably no --------------------------------------- 11% ---------------------- 15% ---------------------- 12% Definitely no -------------------------------------- 29% ---------------------- 29% ---------------------- 29% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 5% ------------------------9% ------------------------ 6%

(JUNE 8-9) X1. Next, I am going to read you some statements from supporters of this measure creating the East

Multnomah County Regional Park District. Supporters say that creating a park district with Gresham, Troutdale, Fairview and Wood Village is the

best way to protect and improve our local parks, natural areas, wildlife habitat and the water quality of our rivers, creeks and streams. Creating a park district would also protect our community’s natural beauty for future generations to enjoy the same way we do.

Having heard this, if there were an election today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”) GRESHAM NON-GRESHAM OVERALL

(N=231) (N=72) (N=303) TOTAL YES -------------------------------------- 52% ---------------------- 40% ---------------------- 49% Definitely yes ------------------------------------- 22% ---------------------- 17% ---------------------- 21% Probably yes ------------------------------------- 22% ---------------------- 16% ---------------------- 21% Undecided, lean yes ---------------------------- 8% ------------------------7% ------------------------ 8% TOTAL NO --------------------------------------- 42% ---------------------- 53% ---------------------- 45% Undecided, lean no ----------------------------- 4% ------------------------4% ------------------------ 4% Probably no --------------------------------------- 8% ----------------------- 16% ---------------------- 10% Definitely no -------------------------------------- 30% ---------------------- 32% ---------------------- 30%


3

(DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 6% ------------------------7% ------------------------ 6% (JUNE 8-9) X2. Next, I am going to read you some statements from opponents of this measure creating the East

Multnomah County Regional Park District. Opponents say that creating a new park district will result in yet another layer of unnecessary

bureaucracy and do little to help local parks and recreation opportunities. Additionally, it will create another government agency to raise our taxes in the future. Having heard this, if there were an election today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”) GRESHAM NON-GRESHAM OVERALL

(N=231) (N=72) (N=303) TOTAL YES -------------------------------------- 44% ---------------------- 36% ---------------------- 42% Definitely yes ------------------------------------- 19% ---------------------- 14% ---------------------- 17% Probably yes ------------------------------------- 17% ---------------------- 17% ---------------------- 17% Undecided, lean yes ---------------------------- 8% ------------------------5% ------------------------ 8% TOTAL NO --------------------------------------- 51% ---------------------- 58% ---------------------- 52% Undecided, lean no ----------------------------- 8% ------------------------2% ------------------------ 6% Probably no --------------------------------------- 11% ---------------------- 21% ---------------------- 13% Definitely no -------------------------------------- 32% ---------------------- 35% ---------------------- 33% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 6% ------------------------6% ------------------------ 6%

(JUNE 6-7) 4. Next, I am going to read you some statements from both supporters and opponents of this measure

creating the East Multnomah County Regional Park District. (RANDOMIZE STATEMENTS) [ ] (SUPPORTERS) FIRST/NEXT, supporters say that creating a park district with Gresham, Troutdale,

Fairview and Wood Village is the best way to protect and improve our parks, natural areas and wildlife habitat in a thoughtful and coordinated way across the region and without duplicating similar government functions in each city.

[ ] (OPPONENTS) FIRST/NEXT, opponents say that creating a new park district will result in yet another

layer of unnecessary bureaucracy and do little to help local parks and recreation opportunities. Additionally, it will create another government agency to raise our taxes in the future. Having heard this, if there were an election today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”) GRESHAM NON-GRESHAM OVERALL

(N=237) (N=60) (N=297) TOTAL YES -------------------------------------- 44% ---------------------- 44% ---------------------- 44% Definitely yes ------------------------------------- 18% ---------------------- 15% ---------------------- 17% Probably yes ------------------------------------- 16% ---------------------- 21% ---------------------- 17% Undecided, lean yes ---------------------------- 10% -----------------------9% ----------------------- 10% TOTAL NO --------------------------------------- 52% ---------------------- 51% ---------------------- 52% Undecided, lean no ----------------------------- 6% ------------------------6% ------------------------ 6% Probably no --------------------------------------- 14% ---------------------- 16% ---------------------- 15%


4

Definitely no -------------------------------------- 31% ---------------------- 28% ---------------------- 31% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 5% ------------------------5% ------------------------ 5%

ASK Q6-Q8 OF THE GRESHAM SAMPLE ONLY, STARTING WITH THE BELOW TEXT BOX

NOW LET ME ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT TWO OTHER POTENTIAL MEASURES THAT MAY APPEAR ON AN UPCOMING BALLOT IN THE CITY OF GRESHAM, INSTEAD OF THE MEASURE WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING. FOR EACH, I WILL READ YOU A DESCRIPTION OF THE POTENTIAL MEASURE. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT ONLY ONE OF THESE MEASURES WOULD ACTUALLY APPEAR ON THE BALLOT.

ROTATION INSTRUCTIONS: SPLIT SAMPLE C, READ Q6 AND THEN Q7 SPLIT SAMPLE D, READ Q7 AND THEN Q6

5. (SPLIT SAMPLE C IN THE GRESHAM SAMPLE ONLY) First, here is the description of one possible

ballot measure that may appear on a future ballot.

(SPLIT SAMPLE D IN THE GRESHAM SAMPLE ONLY) Next, let me ask you about a somewhat different measure that may be on a future ballot instead of the one I just described.

(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS IN THE GRESHAM SAMPLE ONLY) Gresham bond to protect natural areas and improve parks. Shall Gresham protect natural areas, water in rivers and streams, and wildlife habitat, and construct and improve parks and trails by issuing up to 25 million dollars general obligation bonds. If there were an election today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”) (SPLIT SAMPLE C) (SPLIT SAMPLE D) BOND PROPERTY TAX FIRST FIRST OVERALL

TOTAL YES -------------------------------------- 39% ---------------------- 39% ---------------------- 39% Definitely yes ------------------------------------- 12% ---------------------- 16% ---------------------- 14% Probably yes ------------------------------------- 15% ---------------------- 18% ---------------------- 16% Undecided, lean yes ---------------------------- 12% -----------------------6% ------------------------ 9% TOTAL NO --------------------------------------- 51% ---------------------- 54% ---------------------- 52% Undecided, lean no ----------------------------- 4% ------------------------4% ------------------------ 4% Probably no --------------------------------------- 13% ---------------------- 15% ---------------------- 14% Definitely no -------------------------------------- 34% ---------------------- 35% ---------------------- 34% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 10% -----------------------7% ------------------------ 8%


5

ROTATION INSTRUCTIONS: SPLIT SAMPLE C, READ Q6 AND THEN Q7 SPLIT SAMPLE D, READ Q7 AND THEN Q6

6. (SPLIT SAMPLE D IN THE GRESHAM SAMPLE ONLY) First, here is the description of one possible

ballot measure that may appear on a future ballot.

(SPLIT SAMPLE C IN THE GRESHAM SAMPLE ONLY) Next, let me ask you about a somewhat different measure that may be on a future ballot instead of the one I just described.

(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS IN THE GRESHAM SAMPLE ONLY) Five-year local option levy for parks services and conservation. Shall Gresham protect natural areas, water in rivers and streams, and wildlife habitat, create recreation programs, and construct and improve parks and trails by imposing a tax of twenty-five cents per one thousand dollars of assessed value for five years beginning in 2011-2012?

If there were an election today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”) (SPLIT SAMPLE C) (SPLIT SAMPLE D) BOND PROPERTY TAX FIRST FIRST OVERALL

TOTAL YES -------------------------------------- 34% ---------------------- 44% ---------------------- 39% Definitely yes ------------------------------------- 14% ---------------------- 19% ---------------------- 17% Probably yes ------------------------------------- 11% ---------------------- 18% ---------------------- 14% Undecided, lean yes ---------------------------- 9% ------------------------6% ------------------------ 8% TOTAL NO --------------------------------------- 62% ---------------------- 51% ---------------------- 57% Undecided, lean no ----------------------------- 4% ------------------------5% ------------------------ 5% Probably no --------------------------------------- 18% ---------------------- 14% ---------------------- 16% Definitely no -------------------------------------- 40% ---------------------- 33% ---------------------- 36% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 4% ------------------------5% ------------------------ 5%

NOW LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT A RELATED, BUT SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT ISSUE.

7. Instead of the ballot measures we have been discussing, the Gresham City Council may decide to

protect natural areas, water in rivers and streams, and wildlife habitat, create recreation programs, and construct and improve parks and trails by establishing a park utility fee of four dollars per month for five years beginning in 2011-2012. Does the City Council taking this action sound like something you would support or oppose? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE, ASK: “Is that strongly SUPPORT/OPPOSE or somewhat?”)

TOTAL SUPPORT -------------------------- 31% Strongly support ------------------------------ 14% Somewhat support -------------------------- 17% TOTAL OPPOSE ---------------------------- 59% Somewhat oppose --------------------------- 12% Strongly oppose ------------------------------ 47%


6

(DON’T READ) DK/NA --------------------- 10%

ASK Q9-Q20 OF THE GRESHAM AND NON-GRESHAM SAMPLES

8. Next, would you personally be willing to pay _________ in additional taxes to protect, natural areas,

water in rivers and streams, and wildlife habitat, create recreation programs, and construct and improve parks and trails in your community? (IF WILLING/ UNWILLING, ASK: Would you be very WILLING/ UNWILLING to pay that amount, or just somewhat?)

(DO NOT ROTATE) (SPLIT SAMPLE A READ “a” THROUGH “e”) (SPLIT SAMPLE B READ “e” THROUGH “a”)

VERY S.W. S.W. VERY (DK/

WILL. WILL. UNWILL. UNWILL. NA) a. 70 dollars per year ---------------------------------------- 8% -------- 11% -------- 14% ------- 61% --------- 6% b. 60 dollars per year ---------------------------------------- 9% -------- 11% -------- 13% ------- 60% --------- 6% c. 50 dollars per year ---------------------------------------- 11% ------- 14% -------- 15% ------- 54% --------- 5% d. 40 dollars per year ---------------------------------------- 15% ------- 20% -------- 14% ------- 46% --------- 6% e. 30 dollars per year ---------------------------------------- 24% ------- 26% ---------9% -------- 37% --------- 4% 9. Next, I am going to read you a list of projects that could be funded to protect and improve local parks,

natural areas and wildlife habitat. As I read each one, please tell me how important it is to you that each project be undertaken: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important. (RANDOMIZE)

EXT. VERY S.W. NOT READ) IMP. IMP. IMP. IMP. DK/NA (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]a. Improving pedestrian access to parks and natural

areas ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9% ------ 19% ----- 38% ----- 32% ------ 1% [ ]b. Repairing and improving neighborhood parks ------------------ 11% ----- 32% ----- 35% ----- 22% ------ 1% [ ]c. Repairing and improving recreational facilities ------------------ 11% ----- 24% ----- 39% ----- 25% ------ 2% [ ]d. Creating playgrounds --------------------------------------------------- 9% ------ 23% ----- 35% ----- 32% ------ 1% [ ]e. Creating hiking, biking and walking trails --------------------------- 9% ------ 19% ----- 35% ----- 35% ------ 2% [ ]f. Connecting existing parks and natural areas --------------------- 9% ------ 20% ----- 28% ----- 39% ------ 4% [ ]g. Protecting water quality in rivers, creeks and streams --------- 29% ----- 36% ----- 21% ----- 13% ------ 1% [ ]h. Preserving open space ------------------------------------------------ 19% ----- 28% ----- 29% ----- 23% ------ 2% [ ]i. Providing youth recreation programs ------------------------------ 21% ----- 27% ----- 30% ----- 21% ------ 1% (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]j. Improving automobile access to parks and natural

areas ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6% ------ 10% ----- 34% ----- 48% ------ 2% [ ]k. Creating new neighborhood parks ----------------------------------- 7% ------ 24% ----- 29% ----- 39% ------ 1% [ ]l. Creating recreational facilities ---------------------------------------- 6% ------ 23% ----- 34% ----- 35% ------ 1% [ ]m. Creating sports and athletic fields ----------------------------------- 8% ------ 23% ----- 27% ----- 41% ------ 2% [ ]n. Repairing and improving existing hiking, biking and

walking trails ------------------------------------------------------------------ 13% ----- 30% ----- 28% ----- 28% ------ 1% [ ]o. Connecting existing trails --------------------------------------------- 9% ------ 21% ----- 31% ----- 37% ------ 2% [ ]p. Protecting wildlife habitat --------------------------------------------- 22% ----- 33% ----- 26% ----- 18% ------ 2% [ ]q. Preserving natural areas ---------------------------------------------- 23% ----- 32% ----- 27% ----- 17% ------ 1% [ ]r. Providing senior recreation programs ------------------------------ 16% ----- 26% ----- 31% ----- 24% ------ 3% (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)


7

NOW I AM GOING TO READ YOU SOME STATEMENTS BY SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF PASSING A TAX MEASURE TO PROTECT NATURAL AREAS, WATER QUALITY, AND WILDLIFE

HABITAT, CREATE RECREATION PROGRAMS, AND CONSTRUCT AND IMPROVE PARKS, TRAILS, AND RECREATION AREAS IN YOUR COMMUNITY.

10. First, here are some statements from people who support passing a tax measure to protect and

improve local parks, natural areas and wildlife habitat. After hearing each statement, please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to vote yes for such a ballot measure. If you do not believe the statement, please tell me that too. (RANDOMIZE)

(DON’T VERY S.W. NOT DON'T READ) CONV. CONV. CONV. BEL. DK/NA [ ]a. (WATER QUALITY) By protecting land around

creeks and streams, passing a measure like this will help to protect local water quality. ---------------------- 20% ------- 42% -------- 25% ------ 12% ------- 1%

[ ]b. (ACCESS) Passing a measure like this will help to better plan for our local growth and achieve the goal of having park and recreational facilities within one-half of a mile of all residents. --------------------------- 14% ------- 32% -------- 37% ------ 13% ------- 3%

[ ]c. (ACCOUNTABILITY) All spending from a measure like this will be subject to independent annual audits and oversight by a committee of local citizens, to ensure that all funds are spent efficiently and appropriately. ----------------------------------------------- 25% ------- 29% -------- 25% ------ 19% ------- 1%

[ ]d. (QUALITY OF LIFE) A measure like this will improve our quality of life by providing convenient new neighborhood parks and trails throughout our community, with playgrounds and picnic areas for families to use. --------------------------------------------------- 22% ------- 35% -------- 31% ------ 11% ------- 1%

(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]e. (CHILDREN) A measure like this will provide more

parks and recreation opportunities to give our kids positive activities and help keep them from getting into trouble. -------------------------------------------------------- 26% ------- 33% -------- 25% ------ 14% ------- 2%

[ ]f. (PROPERTY VALUES) By protecting our community’s natural beauty and improving parks and recreational opportunities, a measure like this measure will increase local property values. -------------- 24% ------- 32% -------- 26% ------ 15% ------- 3%

(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]g. (FUTURE GENERATIONS) Passing a measure

like this will protect our community’s natural beauty for future generations, so our children and grandchildren can enjoy our parks, trails and wildlife the same way we do. --------------------------------- 23% ------- 39% -------- 29% ------- 8% -------- 1%

[ ]h. (LOCAL ECONOMY) By protecting our community’s natural beauty and improving parks and recreational opportunities, a measure like this will attract businesses and help the local economy. ----- 17% ------- 34% -------- 28% ------ 18% ------- 2%

(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 11. Having heard this, let me ask you again about the (NON-GRESHAM SAMPLE: ballot measure)

(GRESHAM SAMPLE: three ballot measures) we have been discussing to protect and improve local parks, natural areas and wildlife habitat. (GRESHAM SAMPLE: For each) please indicate if you would


8

vote “yes” to support it, or “no” to oppose it? (IF YES/NO, ASK:) “Is that definitely (YES/NO) or just probably?” (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: Well, do you lean towards voting yes or no?) (RANDOMIZE)

DEF PROB LEAN LEAN PROB DEF (DK/

YES YES YES NO NO NO NA) [ ]a. A tax of twenty-five cents per one

thousand dollars of assessed value to create the East Multnomah County Regional Park District for parks and recreation services, and conservation ------------------------------------- 14% ----- 21% ------ 7% ------- 7% ------ 14% ----- 34% ------ 3%

(GRESHAM SAMPLE ONLY) [ ]b. A twenty-five million dollar bond

measure to protect natural areas and improve and develop parks in Gresham ------------------------------------------ 12% ----- 16% ------ 9% ------- 6% ------ 15% ----- 36% ------ 6%

[ ]c. A five-year twenty-five cents per one thousand dollars of assessed value levy for parks and recreation services, and conservation in Gresham ------------------------------------------ 14% ----- 20% ------ 8% ------- 5% ------ 16% ----- 34% ------ 3%

(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS IN BOTH SAMPLES) 12. Next, here are some statements from people who oppose passing a tax measure to protect and

improve local parks, natural areas and wildlife habitat. After hearing each statement, please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to vote no for such a ballot measure. If you do not believe the statement, please tell me that too. (RANDOMIZE)

(DON’T VERY S.W. NOT DON'T READ) CONV. CONV. CONV. BEL. DK/NA [ ]a. (WASTE) We cannot trust the government to spend

the money from this measure properly. It will just end up being wasted and misspent. ------------------------ 40% ------- 26% -------- 23% ------- 9% -------- 2%

[ ]b. (OTHER PRIORITIES) We cannot afford to spend more of our tax dollars on parks and recreation when our community faces other higher priority problems, such as major cuts to police and fire protection services. ---------------------------------------------- 46% ------- 30% -------- 19% ------- 5% -------- 1%

(DON’T VERY S.W. NOT DON'T READ) CONV. CONV. CONV. BEL. DK/NA [ ]c. (ECONOMY) With our economy in the worst

recession since the Great Depression, we simply cannot afford to raise taxes on families that are having a hard time making ends meet. -------------------- 54% ------- 25% -------- 16% ------- 3% -------- 1%

[ ]d. (UNNECESSARY) The existing parks and other recreational facilities are excellent and well-maintained. We do not need to raise taxes to spend more money improving existing or building new parks and recreational facilities.------------------------ 39% ------- 28% -------- 23% ------- 7% -------- 3%


9

13. Sometimes over the course of a survey like this, people change their minds. Let me ask you again about the (NON-GRESHAM SAMPLE: ballot measure) (GRESHAM SAMPLE: three ballot measures) we have been discussing to protect and improve local parks, natural areas and wildlife habitat. (GRESHAM SAMPLE: For each) please indicate if you would vote “yes” to support it, or “no” to oppose it? (IF YES/NO, ASK:) “Is that definitely (YES/NO) or just probably?” (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: Well, do you lean towards voting yes or no?) (RANDOMIZE)

DEF PROB LEAN LEAN PROB DEF (DK/

YES YES YES NO NO NO NA) [ ]a. A tax of twenty-five cents per one

thousand dollars of assessed value to create the East Multnomah County Regional Park District for parks and recreation services, and conservation ------------------------------------- 15% ----- 20% ------ 7% ------- 5% ------ 14% ----- 36% ------ 4%

(GRESHAM SAMPLE ONLY) [ ]b. A twenty-five million dollar bond

measure to protect natural areas and improve and develop parks in Gresham ------------------------------------------ 11% ----- 18% ------ 7% ------- 7% ------ 15% ----- 37% ------ 6%

[ ]c. A five-year twenty-five cents per one thousand dollars of assessed value levy for parks and recreation services, and conservation in Gresham ------------------------------------------ 14% ----- 19% ------ 7% ------- 5% ------ 14% ----- 37% ------ 3%

(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS IN BOTH SAMPLES)

WE'RE JUST ABOUT DONE. I'M ONLY GOING TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES.

14. How often do you visit or use a park, open space, recreation area or trail? Almost every day ------------------------------ 5% Several times a week ----------------------- 22% Several times a month ---------------------- 23% Several times a year ------------------------ 28% Almost never ---------------------------------- 15% Never --------------------------------------------- 6% (DON’T READ) DK/NA ----------------------- 0% 15. Do you have any children under the age of 19 living at home? Yes ---------------------------------------------- 31% No ----------------------------------------------- 69% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED -------- 1% 16. Do you own or rent your place of residence? Own --------------------------------------------- 86% Rent --------------------------------------------- 11% (DON'T READ) DK/NA/Refused ----------- 3%


10

17. What was the last level of school you completed? Less than grade 12 ---------------------------- 3%

Grade 12 --------------------------------------- 20% Less than 4yrs of college ------------------ 29% College graduate (4) ------------------------ 35% Post graduate work/ Professional school ----------------------- 12% (REFUSED/NA) -------------------------------- 2%

18. In what year were you born? 1992-1986 (18-24) ----------------------------- 3% 1985-1981 (25-29) ----------------------------- 5% 1980-1976 (30-34) ----------------------------- 6% 1975-1971 (35-39) ----------------------------- 6% 1970-1966 (40-44) --------------------------- 10% 1965-1961 (45-49) ----------------------------- 8% 1960-1956 (50-54) --------------------------- 12% 1955-1951 (55-59) --------------------------- 13% 1950-1946 (60-64) --------------------------- 11% 1945-1936 (65-74) --------------------------- 13% 1935 or earlier (75 & over) ----------------- 10% (DON’T READ) DK/NA/Refused ----------- 3% 19. I don't need to know the exact amount, but I'm going to read you some categories for household

income. Would you please stop me when I have read the category indicating the total combined income for all the people in your household before taxes in 2009?

$25,000 and under ---------------------------- 9%

$25,001 - $50,000 --------------------------- 15% $50,001 - $75,000 --------------------------- 25%

$75,001 - $100,000 ------------------------- 17% $100,001 - $150,000 -------------------------- 8%

$150,001 or more ------------------------------ 2% (DON'T READ) Refused ------------------- 22%

Sex: By Observation Male --------------------------------------------- 47% Female ----------------------------------------- 53% PARTY REGISTRATION: Democrat -------------------------------------- 47% Republican ------------------------------------ 34% Independent ----------------------------------- 16% Other ---------------------------------------------- 3% Name _____________________________ Phone # ____________________________ Address ____________________________ Date _______________________________ City _____________________________ Cluster # ___________________________ Interviewer __________________________ Precinct ____________________________ Voter ID# ___________________________ Page # _____________________________


11

ZIP CODE __________________________ County _____________________________

FLAGS

P02 -------------------------------------------------------- 47% G02 ------------------------------------------------------- 66% P04 -------------------------------------------------------- 44% G04 ------------------------------------------------------- 89% P06 -------------------------------------------------------- 47% G06 ------------------------------------------------------- 82% P08 -------------------------------------------------------- 68% G08 ------------------------------------------------------- 98% BLANK ----------------------------------------------------- 0%

CITY

Gresham ------------------------------------------------- 78% Fairview ---------------------------------------------------- 7% Troutdale ------------------------------------------------ 13% Wood Village --------------------------------------------- 2%

SAMPLE

Gresham ------------------------------------------------ 78% Non-Gresham ------------------------------------------ 22%

TO: Interested Parties

FROM: David Metz and Curtis Below Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates RE: Key Findings from City of Gresham Survey DATE: June 23, 2010

Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) recently conducted a survey of 600 voters in the communities of Gresham, Troutdale, Fairview and Wood Village to assess their support for a potential ballot measures to finance parks, recreation and conservation programs for the region.67 The survey results show that voters feel positive about the overall direction of the community; place a high priority on efforts to protect local water quality, natural areas and wildlife habitat; and are initially open to the idea of creating a regional park district. However, the results also make clear that given the current condition of the economy, voters are deeply ambivalent about proposals to increase taxes. While local voters seem unlikely to support a park and conservation finance ballot measure in this November’s election, the survey provides some guidance regarding how such a measure might be crafted to stand the best chance of success in a subsequent election. In a better economic climate, a measure to create a regional park district – if designed to have a tax impact in the range of $30 per household and if accompanied by a comprehensive program of public education – may be able to attract majority support. Among the key specific findings of the survey are the following:

Roughly one-half of local voters feel positive about the direction of their community. One of the first survey questions asked voters to assess whether things in their community were headed in the right direction or off on the wrong track – a standard question in polling to assess the mood of a community. One-half of voters (49%) feels their community is “generally headed in the right direction,” while one-third (34%) expressed concerns that “things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track” (Figure 1). The remaining 17 percent were not sure or had mixed opinions.

67 Methodology: From June 6-9, 2010, FM3 completed 600 telephone interviews with registered voters likely to participate in the November 2010 election in Gresham, Troutdale, Fairview and Wood Village. 400 Interviews were conducted with Gresham residents and 200 with residents from the other communities. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is +/- 4.9%, margins of error for other subgroups within the sample will be higher.

FIGURE 1: How Voters View the Direction of the Local Community

While voters generally opposed each of a variety of proposed tax increases to fund parks and recreation, a plurality supported forming a regional park district. Survey respondents in the City of Gresham were asked to react to four potential finance mechanisms for funding parks, recreation and conservation in their community – forming a regional park district (funded by a property tax), a bond measure, a property tax, and a park utility fee. Respondents from the cities of Troutdale, Fairview and Wood Village were only asked about the regional park district measure.

As shown in Figure 2, only the regional park district measure had plurality support from voters – 49 percent “yes” to 45 percent “no” – while the two other Gresham-only finance measures – the bond measure and property tax – were opposed by majorities of voters (52% and 57%, respectively). Additionally, nearly three in five Gresham voters (59%) indicated they would oppose their City Council enacting a $4 per month park utility fee. These results suggest voters are not inclined to support a local tax increase funding parks, recreation and conservation at this time; however, creating a regional park district shows more promise and may be capable of drawing majority support in a better economic climate.

FIGURE 2:

Voter’s Reactions to Various Parks, Recreation and Conservation Financing Mechanisms

Finance Mechanism How Cities Surveyed Percentage (%)

Wrong

Track

34% Right

Direction

49%

Don't

Know

17%

Enacted Yes No Und.

Regional park district funded by property tax of $0.25 per $1,000 assessed value

Public Vote Gresham, Troutdale,

Fairview, Wood Village

49 45 6

$25 million bond Public Vote Gresham only 39 52 9

Property tax of $0.25 per $1,000 assessed value

Public Vote Gresham only 39 57 5

Park utility fee of $4 per month

Council Action

Gresham only 31* 59* 10

*For this option, respondents were asked if they would “support or oppose” the council action. Consequently, the percentages shown are for “support” and “oppose” and not “yes” or “no.”

Though nearly one-half (49%) of voters would support a measure creating a regional park district, support is tentative. While 49 percent of voters indicated they would vote “yes” on a measure establishing an East Multnomah County Regional Park District, much of the support for the idea was soft. Only 20 percent indicated they would “definitely” vote “yes” (Figure 3), while in contrast 29 percent of voters indicated they would “definitely” vote “no.” Furthermore, as shown in Figure 3, support and opposition remained essentially unchanged after respondents heard a short positive statement advocating support for the measure. These results suggest both that opponents hold their position more intensely than do supporters, and that at this point in time, even a strong “yes” campaign would have difficulty consolidating support for a park district from a majority of voters.

FIGURE 3:

Support for a Measure Creating a Regional Park District

“East Multnomah County Regional Park District Formation. Shall a regional park district be formed with Gresham, Troutdale, Fairview and Wood Village to protect natural

areas, water in rivers and streams, and wildlife habitat, create recreation programs, and construct and improve parks and trails, funded by a tax of twenty-five cents per one thousand dollars of assessed value beginning in 2011-2012?”

Position

Percentage (%)

Initial Vote After Positive

Statement Change

Definitely yes 20 21 +1

Probably/lean yes 29 28 -1

TOTAL YES 49 49 -

Definitely no 29 30 +1

Probably/lean no 16 15 -1

TOTAL NO 45 45 -

UNDECIDED 6 6 -

Also, initial support for creating a new regional park district was stronger among Gresham voters than among voters from Troutdale, Fairview and Wood Village. A majority of Gresham voters supported the measure (51 percent to 44 percent), while a plurality of Troutdale, Fairview and Wood Village voters opposed the measure (with 42 percent “yes” and 49 percent “no”).

Voters are reluctant to pay more than $30 per year in additional taxes to fund local park, recreation and conservation projects. Respondents were also asked about their willingness to pay $30 to $70 per year in additional taxes to “protect, natural areas, water in rivers and streams, and wildlife habitat, create recreation programs, and construct and improve parks and trails” in their community. As shown in Figure 4, strong majorities of respondents were unwilling to pay more than $30 more per year for such projects. Furthermore, at the $30 level, respondents were essentially evenly divided – 50 percent “willing” and 46 percent “unwilling” to pay. The results suggest that, in principle, local voters are willing to pay additional taxes for parks, recreation and conservation, but that the amount they are willing to pay is likely no more than $30 per year.

FIGURE 4:

Willingness to Pay Additional Taxes to Fund Local Parks, Recreation and Conservation Projects

Amount

Percentage (%)

Total Willing

Total Unwilling

Don’t Know

$70 per year 19 75 6

$60 per year 20 73 7

$50 per year 25 69 6

$40 per year 35 60 5

$30 per year 50 46 4

Voters prioritize protection of water quality above all other types of park, recreation and conservation projects. Respondents were read a list of projects that could be funded by any of the finance mechanisms presented to them in the survey, and were asked to rate each as extremely important, very important, somewhat important or not important to undertake. As shown in Figure 5, nearly two-thirds of respondents (65%) indicated that “protecting water quality in rivers, creeks and streams” was either “extremely” or “very” important to them. In a second tier, respondents prioritized “protecting wildlife habitat” and “preserving natural areas,”

both seen as “extremely” or “very” important by 55 percent of respondents. Providing recreation programs, preserving open space, and maintaining neighborhood parks and trails made up a third tier.

FIGURE 5:

Voter Park Project Priorities

Project Ext./Very Important

S.W. Important

Not Important

Protecting water quality in rivers, creeks and streams 65 21 14

Protecting wildlife habitat 55 26 20

Preserving natural areas 55 27 18

Providing youth recreation programs 48 30 22

Preserving open space 47 29 25

Repairing and improving neighborhood parks 43 35 23

Repairing and improving existing hiking, biking and walking trails

43 28 29

Providing senior recreation programs 42 31 27

Repairing and improving recreational facilities 35 39 27

Creating playgrounds 32 35 33

Creating new neighborhood parks 31 29 40

Creating sports and athletic fields 31 27 43

Connecting existing trails 30 31 39

Connecting existing parks and natural areas 29 28 43

Creating recreational facilities 29 34 36

Improving pedestrian access to parks and natural areas 28 38 33

Creating hiking, biking and walking trails 28 35 37

Improving automobile access to parks and natural areas

16 34 50

The projects rated as most important dealt with preserving or maintaining existing amenities, while those on the lower half of the scale dealt with creating new amenities or expanding existing ones (e.g., “creating recreational facilities” and “creating hiking, biking and walking trails”). This suggests that voters are far more focused – and likely more willing to spend money on – protecting existing services and facilities in their community rather than expanding them.

Overall, the survey results show that voters in East Multnomah County are willing to raise taxes to fund parks, recreation and conservation projects, but that they only willing to spend rather modest

amounts (e.g. less than $30 per year). Furthermore, they prioritize maintaining and protecting existing park and recreation services and resources over expanding such services. However, voters appear reluctant – at best – to support tax increases to fund parks, recreation and conservation services at this point in time. Gresham voters do not appear open to supporting a Gresham-specific finance measure at this point in time, but are much more amenable to creating a regional park district, even if it involves establishing a new property tax. Consequently, proponents of securing additional funds for parks, recreation and conservation should focus their outreach and education efforts over the coming months on making the case for establishment of regional park district, and revisit the viability of a ballot measure at some time in the future.

Appendix B: Local Conservation Finance Measures

Jurisdiction Name Date Description

Total Funds

Approved

Conservation

Funds Approved

%

Yes

Ashland Nov-09

20-year, 5 percent meals tax extension with 80

percent of the revenue for the sewage capital

projects and 20 percent for open space purchases $30,000,000 $6,000,000 59%Atfalati Recreation Partnership

(cities of Tigard and Tualatin, the

Tigard-Tualatin School District,

Washington County) Nov-00

Property tax increase to form the district and

provide recreation facilities and services, including

a regional trail and open space system 46%

Blue Heron Recreation District Nov-00

Property tax increase to purchase and preserve

open spaces for recreational uses 45%

Cannon Beach May-09 Bond for the protection of Ecola Creek watershed $4,000,000 $4,000,000 51%

Corvallis Nov-00 Bond issue for open space acquisition $7,900,000 $7,900,000 65%

Eugene Nov-98

Ballot Measure 20-30, Bond for Parkland

Acquisition, Sports Field, Swimming Pool $25,305,000 $9,070,000 67%

Eugene Nov-06 Bond to acquire parks and open space $27,490,000 $20,200,000 59%

Lake Oswego Nov-98

Measure No. 3-20, Bond for open space, sports

field renovation $13,000,000 $6,000,000 60%

Lake Oswego Nov-02

Measure 3-93; Bond for parks, open space and

pathways $9,750,000 $4,550,000 58%

Lincoln City Nov-98 Bond measure for open space acquisition $3,000,000 $3,000,000 52%

Metro-Portland Nov-06

Bond to preserve natural areas, and protect water

quality, fish and wildlife habitats $227,400,000 $227,400,000 59%

North Clackamas Parks and

Recreation District Nov-00

Property tax increase to maintain parks, programs,

services, and to provide more open space, natural

areas, trails, pathways and recreational

opportunities 50%

Oregon Nov-98

Measure 66, 15-years, Constitutional amendment

dedicating 15 percent of lottery proceeds for parks,

beaches, wildlife, watershed protection $700,000,000 $700,000,000 67%

Portland Nov-98 Measure No. 26-70, Bond for parks 49%

Roseburg Nov-98 Bonds for parks and trails $2,500,000 $1,600,000 55%

Salem Nov-02 Measure 24-27; bond for parks 45%

Salem Nov-96

Measure 24-76, Bond for Open Space, Recreation,

Parks 40%

Sandy Nov-98 Measure 3-32, Bond for parks, recreation 49%

Tigard Nov-09

Bond for the purchase of land for natural areas,

parks and trails 47%

Troutdale Nov-02 Measure 26-41, bond for parkland and open space 47%

Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation

District Nov-00

Property tax increase for maintenance, land

acquisition, and capital improvements 44%

Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation

District Nov-08

Bond for new parks, land acquisition, trails, and

facility renovation $100,000,000 $32,200,000 51%

West Linn May-02

Measure 3-67; Bond to acquire parkland for athletic

fields 48%

West Linn Nov-98 Measure 3-37, Bond for Parks, Recreation $8,000,000 $8,000,000 51%

$1,158,345,000 $1,029,920,000

Source: Trust for Public Land, LandVote Database

Oregon Local Conservation Finance Ballot Measures - 1996 to 2009

Appendix C: City of Medford, Park Utility Fee Ordinance

Appendix D: Local Funding Options Matrix

Revenue Option

Description and Generating Potential Implementation Process

Comments

Local Option Levy (Property Tax)

A local option levy for either operation and maintenance (maximum of five years) or capital projects (lesser of expected useful life or ten years) may be levied by Gresham for park, trail and open space purposes. Without considering property tax compression, Gresham has $0.98445 in remaining capacity.

Local Option Levy Annual Revenue Annual Cost/Home

$0.25 $1.7 million $40

$0.40 $2.7 million $64

Requires majority approval of voters at an even-numbered general election or at an election with majority voter turnout.

Would create a dedicated funding source that could be used for acquisition or maintenance.

Operating levies need to be referred to voters every 5 yrs.

Local option levies subject to $10 per $1,000 AV permanent rate limitation and to compression.

General Obligation Bonds

Annual Prop Tax Annual Cost

Bond Issue Debt Service Increase $ / Ave. Home

$15 million $1.2 million $0.18 $29

$25 million $2 million $0.30 $48

The debt service figures for the proposed bond issue above are based upon a general obligation bond issued for 20 years at 5 percent interest. This rate is only used for illustration. City officials, financial advisors, bond counsel and underwriters would establish the actual terms of any bond.

Requires majority approval of voters at an even-numbered general election or at an election with majority voter turnout.

Bonds raise substantial amounts of money, enabling the county to make acquisitions now while land is available.

Costs would be spread out over a long time horizon, and therefore borne by current and future beneficiaries.

Interest increases the cost.

Bonds proceeds may not be used for maintenance.

Cont’d on next two pages….

Revenue Option


Comments

System Development Fees

Imposition of a Park SDC in areas of residential growth for trail acquisition and construction.

Requires rational nexus to the new development paying the SDC.

Unpredictable source of revenue because depends upon new residential construction.

Specific Tax Pursuant to its charter authority, Gresham could levy a specific tax as a fixed tax on each residential or commercial unit.

Requires charter amendment and approval by majority of voters.

Would create a dedicated source of funding that is not subject to Measure 5 limitations.

A specific tax measure for parks failed in the city of Keizer (31 percent “yes” votes).

City Park and Recreation Fees

An increase to city park and recreation user fees could be considered by Gresham

City Council approval May be used for capital projects or operation, but are usually reinvested to cover program costs or facility maintenance.

Any increase to user fees need to be balanced against affordability for residents.

Park Utility Fee

Similar to the City of Medford, Gresham could institute a park utility fee on those paying water utility bills

Fee Annual Revenue

$3 $1.59 million

$4 $2.1 million

$5 $2.7 million

City Council Approval May be used for capital projects or operation

Any new fee need to be balanced against affordability for residents.

Revenue Option


Comments

Park and Recreation District

Gresham could consider formation of a park and recreation district that has the ability to levy taxes via its board and issue general obligation bonds with voter approval.

May be formed by County Commissioners upon petition for formation submitted by voters or landowners.

A park and recreation district’s sole purpose is to provide and maintain park and recreational facilities.

Urban Renewal Agency

An urban renewal agency uses tax increment financing and bonds to finance the rehabilitation of certain areas in the city.

Urban renewal plan must be approved by City Council.

Park, trail and open space amenities may be included in the plan to revive the blighted area.

Not common to dedicate urban renewal funds for park purposes.

For any questions or more information please contact:

Josh Alpert Northwest Conservation Finance Director The Trust For Public Land 806 SW Broadway, Suite 206 Portland, OR 97205 (971) 244-4110 [email protected],

Andrew du Moulin Director, Center for Conservation Finance Research The Trust for Public Land 33 Union St. 5th Floor Boston, MA 02108 [email protected]

The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is a national nonprofit land conservation organization working to protect land for human enjoyment and well-being. TPL helps conserve land for parks, greenways, recreation areas, watersheds and wilderness. To date, TPL has helped protect over 4,000 properties, totaling almost 3 billion acres in all fifty states. In Oregon, TPL has helped protect almost 74,000 acres.

To help public agencies or land trusts acquire land, TPL assists communities in identifying and securing public financing. TPL’s conservation finance program offers technical assistance to elected officials, public agencies and community groups to design, pass and implement public funding measures that reflect popular priorities. Since 1996, TPL has supported seven successful statewide and local conservation finance ballot measures in Oregon, generating nearly $1 billion dollars for parks and land conservation purposes. TPL is also leading the campaign to renew statewide funding for Oregon in November 2010.

Given the substantial investment of time and resources required for a successful conservation finance initiative, preliminary research is essential to determine the feasibility of such an effort. The objective for this study is to research the most viable local public options for funding land conservation in Gresham, Oregon and provide analysis of which local options and funding levels are economically prudent and likely to be publicly acceptable. This research provides a fact-based reference document that can be used to evaluate available financing mechanisms from an objective vantage point.

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Gresham parks feasibility study