fee.JPG

Portland Mayor Charlie Hales and Commissioner Steve Novick announced in August that the city doubled its road maintenance efforts. Portland maintained 103 lane miles of streets in the 2013-14 fiscal year at a cost of $11 million.

(Brad Schmidt/The Oregonian)

No clear plan for a controversial street fee emerged Monday during the Portland City Council's first public discussion about transportation funding since delaying its vote in June.

Instead, Mayor Charlie Hales and city commissioners spent the bulk of Monday's two-hour work session highlighting past work and asking detailed questions about various funding options still being considered.

It's not clear when a recommendation will emerge, although time is running low: the City Council is scheduled to review a proposal Nov. 12 with a vote slated Nov. 19.

The so-called street fee – which would create a new income tax on residents and flat fees for businesses – is projected to raise about $40 million a year for transportation efforts. Half would come from residents and half from businesses, although officials expect to only net an annual average of $29 million over six years.

Of that, 42 percent would be spent paving the city's crumbling roads, with the rest earmarked for improvements such as street crossings, lights, signs, sidewalks and bike lanes.

"The revenue will make a worthwhile difference in the overall needs," Leah Treat, the director of the Bureau of Transportation, told the City Council.

But details of an eventual proposal remain unresolved.

For instance, the City Council didn't state a preference about how progressive the street fee should be for residents. Hales suggested that each elected official will need to use the "Goldilocks" test – too high, too low, just right – to determine their personal comfort level.

With monthly charges that could range from $20 to $200 for Portland's highest-income households, Hales noted that he felt comfortable somewhere around $50.

Commissioner Amanda Fritz, meanwhile, suggested that more low-income households should be exempt from paying. She questioned why a two-person household would be exempt only if income was below $30,000, saying the cutoff should be higher.

Capping monthly charges for high-income earners while raising exemptions for low-income households would shift costs to middle earners with incomes between $30,001 and $250,000.

The City Council spent little time debating the business side of the equation, although questions emerged about why governments would have to pay and whether start-up sole proprietors could receive a one-year exemption.

Fritz also expressed some reservation about the city's proposed improvements list, questioning if officials had conducted public involvement when selecting projects.

"As part of this process, am I being asked to approve this list?" she said.

But Hales and Commissioner Steve Novick, who oversees transportation, said the list may change as priorities emerge. An oversight committee would track progress.

"This stuff changes," Hales said. "It's changes a lot on the maintenance side."

Although controversial, Hales and Novick want to pass the new street fee through a City Council vote without referring the funding plan to the ballot. If approved, officials are considering a sunset after six years, although the City Council could simply vote at that time to renew it.

Hales and Novick backed off their plan for a City Council vote in June, giving several special-interest groups time to help revise options. Hales said that work helped "Portland-ize" the latest options, which are significantly different than those considered earlier this year.

Fritz is the swing vote, as Commissioner Nick Fish and Commissioner Dan Saltzman have registered objections to approving a street fee without a public vote.

Willamette Week reported Monday that Fish has floated a proposal to split the City Council decision into two: one vote on the overall plan, a second to refer it to voters.

The division would enable Fish and Saltzman to walk a fine political line, possibly voting in favor of the overall proposal while still ending up in a minority on the question of referring it to the ballot.

"It seems like an unnecessary step," Novick said the idea after the meeting.

Hales' and Novick's offices will craft the final proposal, Novick said, with input from the rest of City Council. He said he didn't know when a proposal will be finalized.

"We'll rattle it around," he said, "and see where we come out."

-- Brad Schmidt