‘I think the storm is coming your way’: Bend city councilors get an earful from public on planned transportation fee

'Bend should be promoting small business, not trying to kill us'; 2nd listening session Thursday morning

BEND, Ore. (KTVZ) – Criticism, concerns and questions were on the menu as expected Monday afternoon at the first of two Bend City Council listening sessions in which several members of the public raised their objections to a transportation fee the city plans to add to water-sewer utility bills this summer.

As you’d expect, the session at Bend City Hall brought out foes of adding to the tax and fee burdens residents already face amid inflation and other issues. But while some said the numbers are questionable, others said it’s more a matter of trust, or lack thereof.

And while it may well become a hotter-button issue as the election year rolls on and the new fee takes effect, the scheduled two-hour session only lasted about an hour, including staff presentation and question time, as in person and via-Zoom testimony (limited to two minutes each) only lasted about a half-hour.

First, the city presented a brief video to the in-person and YouTube audience, including Mayor Melanie Kebler and city Transportation and Mobility Director David Abbas, who said the city has $800 million worth of roads and that preventative maintenance extends their life by some 50%.

City Councilor Mike Riley brought up “the elephant in the room” – why not just pay for upkeep with the city’s existing revenue?

“Unfortunately, the funding we’ve relied on is no longer keeping up, and costs are increasing,” Riley said, noting that gas tax revenue is “predicted to flatten or drop.”

Standing at the new Ninth Street and Wilson Avenue roundabout, Riley said the voter-approved GO (General Obligation) Bond “only funds new improvements. The transportation fee will give us the funding we need to take care of these investments.”

Plenty of details about the proposed fee structure and other information are on the city's web page.

The city presented some history that led to this proposed, phased-in fee, which city councilors rejected enacting by a 4-3 vote in 2009, also turning down a similar recommendation in 2011. In 2016, Bend voters resoundingly rejected a gas tax proposal, by a to-1 ratio.

The first speaker was 24-year Bend resident Mike Walker, who spends much time digging into the numbers and writing letters to the paper and others about how he doesn’t buy the city’s stats.

Walker said he studied eight years of city financial records and found that while core duties only grew 4% a year, the city still was able to improve its “pavement condition index” (the PCI grade of road quality) from 70-76. And he said state fund allotments beat the city forecast.

Other speakers raised other, familiar issues. “Rich” said a fee is “a euphemism for a tax which voters have turned down,” so the city is “trying a workaround, to pull the proverbial wool over our eyes. I suggest you ask the voters again if they want this tax.”

Another speaker, James, said while he’s in favor of such fees, it’s not like the bond measure, which had a list of specific project so voters knew where the funds would go. “I’m in general in favor, but have a lot of questions.””

Robin said this “opens the door to all sorts of fees,” and that the people being asked “always have trouble making ends meet” as well. He said the city first should demonstrate how its reducing costs and getting more efficient.

A woman who owns a “very tiny” two-person business said they were hit hard by the pandemic and that she was “shocked” when she learned how large the new fee would be.

“Bend should be promoting small businesses, not trying to kill us,” she said.

Bill called the fee “one of the cheapest political moves,” taken “just because you can. I’m not sure you even need this money.”

Rick suggested a two-year transportation fee, reporting quarterly on how the money is spent – and then, armed with more data, “go back to voters for a permanent fee.”

Another speaker said it appeared the money was needed primarily for bike infrastructure, as the city has “committees filled with bike advocates."

“Protected, buffered bike lanes are completely unnecessary – I wouldn’t ride them,” he said, then got more pointed: “Four of you are up for re-election. I think the storm is coming your way.”

The owner of two small businesses, trying to open a third, said he was “torn on this idea.”

“I support the idea,” he said. “I just don’t know how much of my money over time will be taken away from me to pay for it. … By death of a thousand cuts, you are killing small business. You spend a lot of time explaining why it’s a fee. Come on – it’s a fee because you can get it passed without a vote.”

While billed as a listening session – the second is Thursday morning at 9:30 a.m. – City Manager Eric King, Kebler and others did try to provide more info after the last people testified.

Kebler said they spent a lot of time on the process and specifics, and that “previous councils decided to kick the can down the road.”

“We’re not doing it because we can,” she said. “The Transportation System Plan, which a large group of citizens worked on, recognized this fee was an integral part of planning for our transportation future.”

Riley said, “Transportation is a core city service we use every day. I see it on a par with water and sewer. We don’t go out to voters on every sewer and water fee (change) – it doesn’t work.” And like Kebler, he said it was “a tough decision that should have been made long ago.”

Councilor Barb Campbell said after years spent with ODOT on area transportation bodies, "You have the fundamental truth that every class of vehicle gets more efficient every year," so the amount of gas tax revenue for the amount of miles driven is going down.