TriMet Considers Even More Borrowing for Milwaukie


Back in May I complained that TriMet was getting ready to borrow $39M to fund the new Milwaukie line. This borrowing would be paid back with future payroll tax revenues – funds that could otherwise be spent actually providing service hours.

Now Portland Afoot is reporting that TriMet may consider raising this amount to $60M to get the project done.

There has to be a better way.


43 responses to “TriMet Considers Even More Borrowing for Milwaukie”

  1. “TriMet is in complete denial of reality”

    I doubt it. They are facing reality. But I agree with Chris, they need to find a better way. There are limits on how much future operating revenue you can invest in capital improvements. MAX will save some operating costs, but there are limits to that.

    This is also probably not the time to bet on a huge spurt in local employment, and the resulting payroll tax revenue, over the next 20-30 years. Of course, that may well happen and investments in transit make it more likely. But voters are not exactly feeling like they are ready to invest in the future, they are worrying about today.

    If they are going to dip into future operating revenue, it ought to be planned as a bridge loan to a larger voter-approved bonding measure that will both pay for the next MAX extension and replace the operating revenue bonds used for this one. One of the problems with bonding measures is that you need votes from all over the region for a project that only delivers obvious direct benefits to one area. A bond measure that also freed operating revenue to expand service throughout the region might have a better chance of passing than one that just paid to extend light rail to southwest Portland and southeast Washington county.

  2. JS,

    Are you for real?

    You tried to pass off TriMet as fiscally sound not to long ago.

    Now you’re just imagining they are facing reality?

    Because there is no evidence of that?

    You might as well be counting on the tooth fairy to think some bond measure vote is going to bail this project or TriMet out.
    That is a non starter fantasy that diverts away from any remedy.

    The fact is TriMet has no available future operating revenue that provides the borrowing capacity for $40-$60 million in bonds.

    They are already over committed by $1 billion in fringe benefit alone.

    Their fiscal mess is far beyond the short term effect of the current economy.

    Given the recent audit and new accounting rules there will likely be severe limitations on how TriMet tries to gin up some image of fiscal soundness.

    But there’s also the rest of the funding package that is nearly identical in it’s reckless nature.

    I’ve been to JPACT, TriMet and Metro meetings. There has been and is zero due diligence n the merits of diverting these large sums from future needs.

    None. Not even the slightest discussion. Not one word about the wisdom in taking school funding to build light rail.

    They all avoid such concerns and conversations. That’s gross negligence.

    You guys withdrew into silence even after voicing adamant opposition to the $40 million TriMet bonds.

    Is the $60 million soon going to be acceptable?

    How about the Portland $20 million imaginary savings from the imaginary Sellwood bridge funding that now will go to Milwaukie Light Rail?
    Where do you suppose that money will actually come from? What? It doesn’t matter?

    It will come from exactly what TriMet is doing. Raiding future revenue that cannot projected as available.

    Portland’s troubles are even worse than TriMet’s. Yet they planning on using Urban Renewal that will divert millions from basic services.

    Clackamas County is tapped out-fully indebted and cannot float any more bonds. Their only hope is also Urban Renewal which is not going to be possible.
    Milwaukie has no source for their share.
    The State Lottery, backed by the State, is also tapped out. Yet MLR will devour $400 million in future lottery profits.

    Exactly how bad do thing have to get before all of you scream for it to stop?

  3. Chris, et al.,
    I wanted to share with you TriMet’s response to this issue. I am copying it below.
    Josh Collins, TriMet Operations


    Funding for the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail (PMLR) project will not affect money available for bus service. Here are the facts. In FY13, TriMet is slated to sell bonds to generate roughly $40 million for its contribution to the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Line. Like a mortgage, these bonds will be paid incrementally over 25 years or so. TriMet’s annual payment will be approximately $3.2 million for debt service on the bonds. This borrowing won’t begin until FY13 and has no impact on current service levels.

    Where does TriMet plan to get this money? Not from bus service, but from an increase in payroll tax revenue that was authorized by the Oregon Legislature in 2003 specifically for service expansion of light rail and other service in our region. This was the same revenue source that paid to build and operate the Green Line.

    Over the past three months we have been working to close the final $137 million local funding gap for PMLR. Since then, our regional partners have contributed nearly $102 million to fill the gap, leaving just two percent of the $1.49 billion project to be covered. TriMet is looking to other partners to fill the remaining gap. Meantime, TriMet will ask its board of directors for authority to issue another $20 million in bonds as a placeholder if needed to close the gap. Those bonds, if needed, would not be issued until FY15. Again, it is important to stress that the bond issue five years from now has no impact on current service. The cost to TriMet would be about $1.9 million per year in debt service. Where will this money come from? The answer is, from future increases in the payroll tax.

    It is important to understand that the Oregon Legislature approved an increase in the payroll tax rate that is projected to take effect beginning in FY14 to pay for new service. This new revenue will pay for the debt service on the new rail as well as future expansions of rail and bus service.

    Mary Fetsch
    TriMet Communications Director

  4. John Charles responding to Fetsch,

    “True, these bonds will not affect service levels NOW. They will certainly affect service levels as soon as debt service on the bonds begins. Bond holders will place a lien on PR tax money and it will be siphoned off to a trust fund as soon as TM receives it. By definition, bond holders will get first dibs on PR tax money (that’s how TM will procure strong bond ratings), and riders will get whatever is left over. Since the Milwaukie project, if ever built, would not open until 2015 or later anyway, between 2013 and 2015 we would be paying for bonds with no new service. And even after 2015, rail would only replace bus service already available, so no net gain there for riders.
    JC”

    I’d add that bond holders will have first claim on future revenue, the soaring cost in fringe benefits will eat up more than whatever is left leaving nothing for riders but more cuts in service.
    Last year alone TriMet saw a 6.5% increase in revenue but the cost of fringe benefits increased by $27 million. Coincidently that was the same amount of this year’s cuts.
    It wasn’t the economy causing the cuts.

    As far into the future as the auditors calculator can see there will be similar increases with no funding to pay them. Any future increases in payroll tax revenue must go to these benefits until restructuring someday ramps down the costs.

  5. “Where will this money come from? The answer is, from future increases in the payroll tax.”

    Can’t those funds be used for any purpose, including operations?

    I suppose the question is whether the region is willing to pony up BOTH a payroll tax increase in a few years that could be used to pay for expanded operating costs and the property taxes for a bond measure to cover capitol investments. That is not going to happen right now, but the property tax really does make more sense as a way to pay for capitol costs.

    The payroll tax, as we have seen, is tied to the economy and having a big chunk of it tied to sunk costs is not a very good idea. It puts a bigger chunk of the burden from sagging payroll taxes on operations. You can’t stop paying bonds in an economic downturn, but you can stop service.

  6. The new Milwaukie MAX line will provide more and better service in the SE corridor, so what’s the problem. But the next expansion should be funded with a bond measure like the Westside expansion.
    Such a bond issue will have to have something for everyone…Yellow to Hayden Island or Vancouver, Green down Barbur Blvd to Tigard, Red to Tanasborn, more new buses, etc. It will be about time for such a vote.

  7. Lenny –

    I don’t really have a problem with using the payroll money now. But I think they ought to explicitly say it is a stopgap measure in a down economy. That in the long run, large capitol projects should be paid for with property taxes. And then they ought to replace the bonds that are already backed with payroll taxes with ones backed by property taxes.

  8. It’s certainly not perfect, but the payroll tax is a somewhat reasonable barometer of transit demand and inflation. TriMet’s built in annual rate increases [The .01% nominal rate increase is actually about 1.5% more each year.] really amount to gravy. The fact that TriMet is having serious financial difficulty even including these semiautomatic rate hikes is a real concern.

    The legislature authorized TriMet to keep hiking the rate up to 0.8%, about 17% greater than what it is now, subject to improvements in the general economy as determined by the TriMet Board.

    This is general fund money and giving any impression that some or all payroll taxes are restricted or dedicated by law is a bit disingenuous.

  9. Lenny,
    Really? The cost or the source of funds have no effect on the value of the new Milwaukie MAX line.

    All one needs to do is say “it will provide more and better service in the SE corridor,”?

    Im’ pretty sure that’s the position of the entire JPACT.

    I find it astounding that entire group of people can apply absoutely no measure of merit.

    How can it not matter what the number is for anything? Let alone a project of this magnitude?

    And what future property taxes do you possibly imagine will be arriving for more light rail or reducing the diverting of payroll taxes?

    The public isn’t going to approve any property tax increases for Light Rail.

  10. The public isn’t going to approve any property tax increases for Light Rail.

    “The public” (Tri-Met area voters) have approved two out of three tax-backed light rail measures, and the one that was defeated went down narrowly while sharing the ballot with a large number of competing bond measures. And that was almost fifteen years ago; we’ve had a large turnover in the electorate since then.

    Lenny’s right. A general “MAX expansion” bond measure that covers multiple extensions (possibilities: Yellow Line to Hayden Island, Blue Line to MHCC and/or Troutdale, Blue line to Cornelius and/or Forest Grove, Milwaukie line to Oregon City, a new line down Barbur to Tigard, maybe a spur from Beaverton TC to Washington Square) would have a good shot at passage as long as many areas will be served AND there aren’t many competing measures on the ballot.

  11. Reading just the headline for the first time gave me great disbelief, and bad feelings for my support of 26-119.

    I remember when the alarm bell really went off when the Yellow Line opened in 2004. The answer at that time was that payroll tax revenue was increasing, which resulted in no change to other service. Service along Interstate Ave. itself, though, actually decreased–Yellow Line ran with less of a span of service than 5-Interstate, less frequency during off-peak times, and required an extra transfer to reach Vancouver. Residents who were within walking distance of a Route 5 stop were now up to half a mile away from a light rail station.

    Not from bus service, but from an increase in payroll tax revenue that was authorized by the Oregon Legislature in 2003 specifically for service expansion of light rail and other service in our region.

    Yes, I added the emphasis. The tax percentage increase IMO should go to expand service for everyone, not cut service to and from where people actually live, work, and contribute to compulsory consumerism.

    Again, it is important to stress that the bond issue five years from now has no impact on current service.

    And yes we know it won’t affect current service. But what about overall service five years from now? As with what happened with the Green Line opening, will TriMet cut service on routes far from any other service? Will TriMet riders still be riding cobbled-together-using-still-working-parts 1700s?

    We’re also looking at the very real possibility that high-paying jobs in any industry may never return, and peoples’ only hope are low-paying subsistence jobs. This in turn hurts TriMets payroll tax revenue: let’s say someone was making $100,000 a year, gets laid off, and to avoid starving to death on the street, takes a new job for $30,000. No matter how you slice or dice the fractions of percents for TriMet Payroll Tax, TriMet still receives less overall money.

    At least for now I’m in an area of the Pacific Northwest serviced by a “pay-as-you-go” agency (as is C-TRAN in Clark Co., WA). If they can’t fund it with available resources, they don’t spend it.

  12. I actually drive now because my bus times got cut.

    Reality sucks, but I can’t keep inconveniencing myself further.

  13. MAX will save some operating costs, but there are limits to that.

    MAX may be more efficient payroll wise (1 operator for the capacity of 2 to 3 buses, depending on time of day and loading), but wouldn’t articulated buses be more effective in some areas? I’m not particularly a fan of BRT, but maybe its time has come.

    Operating cost savings, for example, seem to come from extending new rail lines, with new (unproven and untested) fare machines and other infrastructure, and not increasing the number of people available to service those machines on a continuing basis. And how much of the “unscheduled overtime” that is paid is paid out because there are not maintenance crews on duty 24 hours day (or at least for the majority of the service day) instead of having to call out for overtime for something as simple as a malfunctioning grade crossing barrier?

    Or designing new bus service, or reducing existing service without accurately sampling to determine what service levels need to be (which actually detracts from the service – who wants to wait over an HOUR for a bus? Any bets on whether the next round of cuts will eliminate the 28/29 lines?). Two rounds of cuts ago it took a lot of public pressure to get TriMet to catch a clue.

    Or cutting the number of Fare Inspectors. Has anyone asked TriMet yet how many actual Fare Inspectors are still on the rolls? (Hint: the REAL answer isn’t the 50-60 that will be spouted by the PR arm of the agency — you can count them all on one hand). And why are the transit police virtually invisible on the system, responding instead to low priority district calls. If TriMet is paying their salary and fringes (they are folks, it’s public record), then those officers need to be beholden to TriMet and able to respond during the majority of the service day.

    TriMet continues to expand service (well, of course now, they’re cutting it) without doing any budget modifications to do more than just barely operate it. (And with the cuts and the reduction in headcount, they’re no better off than they were before the cuts.) No substantial increases in personnel, contingency budgets for emergency repairs and other incidents that require relatively instant liquidity. And then when they have to cut, they have to cut deep. Because they don’t plan to actually OPERATE the extensions and service improvements that they build.

    I do find it interesting though, that the marketing department trudges beautifully along, doing things such as sponsoring a bicycle safety exhibition at Pioneer Square (complete with free giveaways of some sort or other), and trying to spin the PMLR project into being.

    The Board of Directors needs to put their foot down, and hard, and now, or they need to be recalled. (Oh, wait, they can’t be recalled, they serve “at the pleasure of the governor.”)

    That said, the agency and the union need to get back to the table and hammer out a reasonable compromise to the long open working and wage agreement/collective bargaining agreement, and one that will help the agency to foster better fiscal responsibility in the immediate future.

  14. “Service along Interstate Ave. itself, though, actually decreased”

    Jason –

    I don’t think that is really true. Max service is better than bus by a number of measures, including trip times. And that is part of the savings, not just the size of the vehicle. And that is a savings not only of the cost of the driver, but of time for all those passengers.

    Its too bad that Trimet has not taken the downturn in the economy as an opportunity to improve bus transit times by reducing the frequency of stops to every three blocks along major transit corridors. That would not really change how close a bus stop was for most people. There would be one stop within the same distance there are now two.

    The reason Trimet has less operating funds has nothing to do with tax rates, its that the payrolls that tax is applied to have declined sharply. There is nothing really surprising about that and the cutbacks would be worse if there had been no investment in MAX with its lower operating costs.

  15. That said, the agency and the union need to get back to the table and hammer out a reasonable compromise to the long open working and wage agreement/collective bargaining agreement, and one that will help the agency to foster better fiscal responsibility in the immediate future.

    My understanding is that this is impossible since the negotiations went into arbitration. A judge will determine which of the two proposals applies and that’s the end of it. And that can’t happen until the unfair practices suit filed by ATU is settled, which can take a very long time.

    Btw, the primary function of the Marketing Department is the creation and distribution of customer information, be it printed, electronic, on-street or on-vehicle.

    My comments are purely my own and are neither endorsed nor fostered by my employer.

  16. All the service hours from the 5 Interstate were distributed to other bus lines in N/NE…75, 8, and so on. The 85 Swan Island went from 9 service hours per day to 27! Since then we have lost a good piece of that for obvious reasons…poor ridership and TriMet’s tight budgets due to Bush’s Great Recession. Let’s give credit where it is due and put the blame where it belongs.

  17. Jason –

    Back in 2007 I did an analysis of trip times, headways, and such comparing the old #5 to the Yellow Line. You can find it here: Dispatches from the Yellow Line.

    If those numbers were run again today, they’d be different because MAX has seen some cutbacks as well, but the general idea is still the same. Clearly there were winners and losers among the #5 riders, but I think there were way more winners than losers. (Doesn’t necessarily excuse creating losers rather than finding ways for everyone to win.)

  18. Just saying,

    Your sermon about TriMet saving money with MAX lines is of course preposterous.

    As everyone has been told, last year Trimet’s operating funds rose 6.5% according the TriMet audit you are ignoring.
    As everyone also now knows their fringe benefits cost rose by $27 million. The same amount as the cuts this year.

    I find it troubling that you and Lenny appear to be deliberately misleading people.
    Unless you have some explanation for such misrepresentations I’d say you are out of line.

    You’re entitled to your own opinions by not your own TriMet.
    The idea the cutbacks would be worse had there been no investment in MAX is without any genuine case ever made. Cherry picking parts of the MAX operating costs for comparison to bus service is not an authentic comparison. The many expenditures at many levels for MAX makes it a ball and chain for Transit Service. Numerous examples of costs like this in the 07/09 lottery budget

    Gresham 188th light rail station reconstruction $3,000,000.00

    are never added on top of the enormous cost of MAX which now exceeds $200 million/mile.
    Of course there’s many others costs such as expensive TriMet staff itself working full time on planning etc.

    Lenny,

    You have to know it’s not accurate to be telling people “TriMet’s tight budgets due to Bush’s Great Recession.”

    Where do think TriMet is getting this $10 million?

    http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/10/ohsu_and_psu_to_team_up_on_new.html

    You guys have been wrongly telling people how fiscally sound TriMet is.
    I find if unfathomable that you don’t know this to be misrepresenting.

    Milwaukie Light Rail should be halted.

  19. I find it troubling that you and Lenny appear to be deliberately misleading people.

    I find it troubling that you appear to be dancing around trying to give the impression of ascribing ill motives to Lenny and Just Saying whilst simultaneously trying to avoid blame (the “I only said ‘appear’” defense) down the road. Knock it off.

    Your factual questions about TriMet’s finances are welcome, as are calmly-presented criticisms of agency policy and practices.

  20. MAX has helped transform Portland from a tired, middling city with no future into a pretty interesting one that a lot of well informed people from around the country look to for hope.
    The investment has been well worth it on many levels. So who, if not Mr Bush, ran our economy into the ground? Oh right, Bill Clinton! LOL.

  21. Come on guys, we’re talking about an enormous amount of money, $2 billion with debt service, being grabbed from revenue streams that are well known to be already insufficeint for years to come. TriMet itself, MSTP, Lottery and property taxes funding schools police fire and other government services are short of rising costs as far as the we can see.

    There every reason to halt MLR.
    They are out weighed by the enamor over wanting more light rail lines.

    If voters had approved a light rail tax levy there would not be the gross misappropriation planned to fund this.

    Now is the time to reset and address

    “lots of small operational improvements that may have more impact on moving people effectively than large capital projects.”

  22. Its a good time to put a lot of people to work on a project that will pay benefits for years. Construction bids are coming in much lower than a few years ago during the Bush Bubble. The federal money, if not spent here, will go to another project in Sacremento, San Diego, Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas, the Twin Cites, Phoenix, Tuscon, let’s see where else out there do they have foolish ideas about rail transit???
    URA $ is for redevelopment…rail transit faciliates that, bus transit does not. But what you really get for the money is dedicated transit right of way whatever vehicle type makes sense. Just like freeways its not cheap, but its essential if you really want to move us away from a hydro-carbon economy…which of course the R’s don’t, funded as they by the likes of the Kochs, etc.

  23. 9 of the MLR’s 11 stations are in Portland where the ’98 bond issue passed with flying colors. MLR is the people’s will; indeed after the ’98 vote it was their energy that brought it back to life. Milwaukie opposed it in ’98, but has since come around as has Clackamas county. Don’t they elect their reps down there too? or did they seize power in a coup de MAX.

  24. Its a good time to put a lot of people to work on a project that will pay benefits for years. Construction bids are coming in much lower than a few years ago during the Bush Bubble.

    How true is this for LRT construction (or other public works, as opposed to housing)? Public works projects are often subject to prevailing wage laws, and encumbered with miles of red tape which your average homebuilder need not deal with.

    Has TriMet–or anybody else–tried to play hardball with contractors–“if the price doesn’t go down, we’ll delay the project?” Or is that simply not a credible threat–delays to public projects such as this often kill them, as funding vanishes.

  25. Lenny,

    It’s amazing that you think that is any kind of a case to build MLR.

    It’s not.

    The money you think will be putting people to work will be taking 100s of millions from funding current jobs and hundreds of millions more in interest from even more current jobs.

    You call that creating jobs? Nice trick.

    You can’t understand or are deliberately avoiding how the project is planned to be funded.

    Are construction bids coming in much lower? Did you find that convenient to presume? Because I don’t buy it. These types of projects and construction don’t deflate.

    I’ll wager that bids will ultimately come in higher than estimates. I can presume too.

    One of the weakest points for moving forward is the “if not spent here, will go to another project” baloney.

    It’s zero justification for misappropriating 100s of millions in the local match.

    URA revenue is stolen by TIF, taking school money to spend on light rail and the development that you falsely claim “rail transit facilitates”.

    That’s about the biggest whopper used by rail advocates.

    Did MAX facilitate the Rockwood development currently underway?

    Did Max facilitate the Round. SoWa, Gresham Station? How about the Rose Quarter?

    Absolutely not to all of the above.

    Light Rail is not essential for anything at all. And it certainly has no impact on our hydro-carbon economy.

    At over $200 million/mile these arguments of yours are no more empty concoctions justifying fiscal recklessness.

    “9 of the MLR’s 11 stations being in Portland” is worse than meaningless regardless of how Portland voted. Primarily because they never voted to pay for the whole thing, now did they?

    You’re suggesting they should be able to vote for everyone else to be forced to join them in paying for it.

    Nice stunt.

    MLR is not the people’s will. You’ve crossed over there Lenny. It was political and official conniving that brought it back to life. Milwaukie taxpayers/voters are opposed now, but again it’s not their call. It’s everyone who will be forced to pay for it and you lose big time with any honest vote.

    Clackams county people, voters/taxpayers are even more opposed than Milwaukie.

    I notice you use Metro’s and TriMet’s approach and make no attempt at all to justify taking the funding as is proposed.

    You’re simply in favor of taking it, no matter how much it is, no matter from where it is taken.

    Is that about it?

  26. MLR is not the people’s will. You’ve crossed over there Lenny. It was political and official conniving that brought it back to life. Milwaukie taxpayers/voters are opposed now, but again it’s not their call. It’s everyone who will be forced to pay for it and you lose big time with any honest vote.

    Clackams county people, voters/taxpayers are even more opposed than Milwaukie.

    I asked this in another thread, and received no answer–so I’ll ask again. How do you know this? Do you have recent polling data which states that Milwaukie residents are now opposed? Is LRT becoming a campaign issue once again there–back in the 1990s, support for N/S MAX got the former mayor voted out of office–given that, I doubt the City Council would touch that issue without a good strong feeling that it’s politically safe to do so. Presuming to speak for the public without the evidence to back it up, doesn’t fly.

    You’re simply in favor of taking it, no matter how much it is, no matter from where it is taken.

    Is that about it?

    [donning moderator hat]

    Please, tone it down. You don’t see others here writing statements like “you’re simply in favor of killing it, no matter how useful it may be, no matter how much it may benefit others” concerning your viewpoints–have some respect for the positions of your fellow constributors. And believe me, I know plenty of conservatives who oppose any public transit on ridiculous grounds such as it being “socialism”, or similar nonsense. I strive to avoid such lines of argument–they don’t enlighten.

    To all commenters. Please keep discussion centered on the issues, not on personalities.

  27. The ’98 vote was for $400M in bonds for South/North; it passed in every neighborhood along the MLR in Portland. How much voter approval do you want? Hope you run for City Council on a NO MAX platform next go around.
    Conservatives oppose MAX BECAUSE it works…over 100,000 times every day, and they’re not fond of public enterprises that do. They oppose the “public” part of everything…transit, education, libraries, you name it. So its hardly a surprise to have to scoll thru their “well thought out arguments” on a blog dedicated to making public transit more effective.

  28. EngineerScotty,

    Milwaukie people are opposed to MLR for a variety of reasons. They don’t want any of the package that came with the prior lines.

    Proponents never give an example or model from pervious lines that Milwaukie can look forward too.

    They also don’t want the city raiding their already insufficient revenue for their $5 million share. The also don’t like the alignment which had been promised not to be near schools.

    They don’t want this MLR plan, don’t need this MLR plan, can’t afford this MLR plan and will stop it from being funded by the city.

    The city can’t even say how they will come up with it. I predict a petition initiative will stop their funding share.

    Clackamas County has already said numerous times the only way they have to fund their share is with the McLoughlin Area UR plan.

    That plan to raid schools and other essential services for light rail will face a public vote and fail.

    The current Mayor of Milwaukie works for TriMet, that’s special, and the city council is tone deaf to the opposition. Same with the county commission.

    It’s funny you ask for evidence of opposition when your evidence of support involves no public vote.

    I am not “simply in favor of killing it, no matter how useful it may be, no matter how much it may benefit others”. I am in favor of killing it because I have weighed both sides. The case for it doesn’t come close to the cost and where the funds must come from. Inlcuding TriMet itself being decimated to pay their share.

    In stark constrast I have never seen you supporters address the merit or problems in taking the hundreds of millions from current revenue streams that are desperately needed and already insufficient.

    What else can one conclude but that it doesn’t matter to supporters how much it costs or where the money comes from?
    That isn’t a comment on personality.

    I know many more conservatives than you and have yet to hear a single one voice opposition on the basis of “socialism”. That is laughable.

    The fact is you cannot justify the cost or source of funding for this MLR.

    You don’t even bother trying.

    But the real problem is none of the JPACT members or supportive legislators bother to try either. They have exhibited zero due diligence.

    Perhaps you can explain the wisdom in such an absence of fiscal responsibility?

    Lenny,

    It wasn’t their $400 million now was it.

    You ask how much voter approval do you want? How about this wild notion? The people being forced to pay for it get to vote?

    You’re opposed to any such vote, admit it.

    Conservatives and many others oppose MAX BECAUSE it isn’t what you try and paint it to be. Tossing out “over 100,000 times every day” fails miserably to address the enormous unaffordable cost, raiding of services, the repeatedly failed TOD concept that people do not support or any of the much better real alternatives.

    Instead you gin up the “they oppose the “public” part of everything…transit, education, libraries, you name it” garbage or parrot the TriMet/Metro bromides.

    Is it pro public schools to take millions from them for light rail without even considering the loss?

    You just can’t face the fact there’s sweeping evidence showing that MAX,TriMet and their funding are hopelessly defective. They are causing enormous damage and transit service to become less effective and more non sustainable every year.

    This isn’t just me. We have police fire and schools opposing the funding schemes.
    We got Metro’s Michael Jordon saying the Green Line was built in the the wrong place and they need new ideas on how to spur private development because the repeated attempts have NOT worked well. Spending millions subsidizing mixed use buildings and other TOD-Corridor density plans has been a costly disaster.

    But apparently you guys all want Milwaukie to get what Rockwood got 25 years ago?

    I agree leave the personalities out of this.
    You have no case for MLR.

  29. Milwaukie people are opposed to MLR for a variety of reasons. They don’t want any of the package that came with the prior lines.

    Proponents never give an example or model from pervious lines that Milwaukie can look forward to

    Again, how do you know? I don’t speak for the people of Milwaukie–but I do notice that the City of Milwaukie (the government) is on record as supporting the project. I suspect that this implies some level of public support–as noted previously, Milwaukie voters have gotten rid of city governments past which crossed them–but certainly, absent a referendum or (scientific) poll on the issue, I’ve no idea what Milwaukie voters in the aggregate think.

    And neither do you.

    At any rate, as I’ve said previously–if the City of Milwaukie wants to have a public referendum to withdraw their contribution, they are entitled to.

    I am not “simply in favor of killing it, no matter how useful it may be, no matter how much it may benefit others”. I am in favor of killing it because I have weighed both sides. The case for it doesn’t come close to the cost and where the funds must come from. Inlcuding TriMet itself being decimated to pay their share.

    Fair enough. Many others have also “weighed both sides” and come up with different conclusions.

    I know many more conservatives than you and have yet to hear a single one voice opposition on the basis of “socialism”. That is laughable.

    That was a contrived example of a bad argument to make, one chosen intentionally not to implicate anyone here. (Including you). But I’ve heard plenty of that sort of argument; and I’ve heard plenty of far more offensive anti-transit arguments in other forums.

    The point is, stick to issues–just because other people reach different conclusions doesn’t mean their reasoning process is flawed and/or that they are not participating in good faith.

    The fact is you cannot justify the cost or source of funding for this MLR.

    I have issues with the bonding of operating revenue, and I have issues on principle with overuse of urban renewal funds. (Some reform to the urban renewal process is in order–if it is indeed the case that a county-sponsored TIF can impact the tax base of other governments beyond the county itself–such as fire and school districts–that’s an issue which needs addressing; but extends beyond MLR).

    In practice, what the City of Milwaukie and Clackamas County do is up to them–I’m not a resident of either. If voters there decide to scuttle the project, that’s their business, certainly. It wouldn’t be great for overall transit outcomes IMHO, but I’m not for forcing MAX on areas which don’t want it, and which are not willing to pay their share to build it. (And I can think of other parts of the metro area which would love to have a MAX line and would be more than willing to pay for it).

    But apparently you guys all want Milwaukie to get what Rockwood got 25 years ago?

    If you mean a fast transit line, then yes.

    Speaking for myself, I’m far less concerned about “development outcomes” than are some around here. But as far as Rockwood goes, it was a blighted area long before MAX went through it. (And as far as TOD goes, it takes a lot more than simply adding transit infrastructure to transform a neighborhood).

  30. JHB,

    So is your mayor who happens to work for TriMet
    and just got a hefty promotian and raise.

    Scotty,
    “Many others have also “weighed both sides” and come up with different conclusions.”

    No they have not. You haven’t weighed the effects of cost or source of funds at all.
    I have been to meetings and spoken Metro/TriMet/JPACT members. There is no such weighing of the cost and source of funding AT ALL.

    Quite the contrary anmd this is central point I am trying to make. It is irresponsible to not do so. And that is th eonly way this project makes any sense. By ignoring the cost and source of funds.

    Portland’s share, Milwaukie’s share, CC’s share the lotterry, TriMet’s share and Metro’s share All will divert millions from revenue for future services and projects that are already projected to be far short of needs. Those involve countless higher priorities such as schools and public safety.
    Not a single conversation has occured by any JPACT members concerning this reality.

    I know you have expressed some concern about the funding with UR and TriMet bonding etc.

    But the totality and true weight of broader misappropriation is left unaddressed by your limited concerns.

    Weight that tilts the scales to the extreme.

  31. So is [Milwaukie’s] mayor who happens to work for TriMet and just got a hefty promotian and raise.

    And seems to be running unopposed in today’s election, FWIW.

    No they have not. You haven’t weighed the effects of cost or source of funds at all.

    With all due respect, I beg to differ.

    Portland’s share, Milwaukie’s share, CC’s share the lotterry, TriMet’s share and Metro’s share All will divert millions from revenue for future services and projects that are already projected to be far short of needs.

    This is true for pretty much any public expenditure–a dollar spent on A isn’t available for B. Where should transportation infrastructure stack up? That’s the crux of the debate, I guess–but LRT isn’t “stealing” money from other schools any more than education is “stealing” money from transit.

    Not a single conversation has occured by any JPACT members concerning this reality.

    JPACT is a transportation board–that’s what the T stands for. Worrying about issues beyond transportation is outside of their job description. Likewise, your local school boards and the state DofE don’t worry much about transit (excepting school busses, of course).

    Setting priorities regarding different government services is the job of mayors, city councils, state legislatures, county commissions, etc. Oh, and voters. If you think that the Milwaukie City Council (which includes the Mayor–it’s a weak-mayor city) or the Clackamas County Commission is shortchanging public safety or education for transit, take it up with them. (I know the Clack. Co. sheriff thinks so–but he’s no more objective on this matter than Neil McFarlane would be).

  32. Wrong.

    These local shares are NOT typical expenditures. They are diverting expenditures from other needs because of the inability to get voter approval of bond measures.

    That’s how these projects should be funded.

    Like Westside MAX was.

    If voters and taxpayers say no that’s it. You can’t excuse or ignore the raiding of essential services by simply saying it’s normal to do so.

    Of course LRT is “stealing” money from education. How can you possible claim it is not.

    Every single Urban Renewal share of LRT reduces the common school fund by millions.

    JPACT members are mayors and commissioners responsible for entire city and county operations.

    JPACT members can’t separate themselves from their other fiduciary responsibilities for other government services..

    Wow! and you say “Worrying about issues beyond transportation is outside of their job description.”

    They put a JPACT hat on and are free to raid other revenue without any concerns?

    That is such BS and the exact problem I am raising.

    That twisted justification for gross negligence is an outrage.

    School boards are not approving projects that raid TriMet or transportation funding.

    Other wise you’d be calling that irresponsible.

    But they do have the school district as their sole responsibility.

    Yes, “setting priorities regarding different government services is the job of mayors, city councils, state legislatures, county commissions, etc. Oh, and voters.”

    But there is no consideration of priorities when it comes to funding MLR and voters are prevented from voting on it.

    Portland, Milwaukie and Clackamas County are of course recklessly shortchanging schools, public safety etc for Light Rail (not for transit).

    And it is being taken up with them.

    You’re simply refusing to address and justify the misappropriations you’ve acknowledged yourself.

    Go back to Trimet bonding against future operations dollars which the auditors report showed will not be available.

    TriMet and all of JPACT are completely disregarding the insufficient funding in TriMet’s future, MSTP’s future, along with school’s, city’s, county’s and the State’s future.

    They are simply irresponsibly stacking up debt against those futures because they can’t tolerate going to voters or giving up this project.

    .

    The Clackamas County Sheriff and Clackmas Couhty Fire Chief are both objective and responsible leaders accurately reporting the effects on their operations.

    Portland Public Schools recently requested and got from the PDC a 5 year projected impact on their funding . I have a copy. It’s 162 million.

    Millions resulting from UR used to fund LRT.

    If you need the report I’ll e-mail a copy to you & Chris.

    Neil McFarlane, far from objective, is a JPACT member who according to you does not have to worry about public safety or schools.

  33. I’m well aware of who sits on JPACT and their dual roles (in many cases) as transit policymakers and general purpose government. Like I said, if you think they are abdicating their responsibility as mayors and county commissioners and such, there’s where you need to be complaining. JPACT itself is concerned with transit, and quite a few of JPACT’s members don’t do anything BUT transit.

    Rather than arguing back and forth, let me ask you a question: Keeping in mind that transit (and transportation in general) is a regional issue, whereas the other concerns you mention (education, police, fire) can be segregated into disparate districts with minimal need for regional cooperation–at what level of government should these decisions be made?

    Obviously, the defeat tonight of 26-119 complicates things for TriMet greatly. It might lead to the postponement or cancellation of MLR, it might not–we’re waiting to see who the next governor is. (And the fact that Clackamas County voters went against it 2-1 makes things more interesting–is this opposition to MLR, opposition to transit in general, or simply a don’t-tax-me-in-a-recession vote)?

Leave a Reply to Steve S. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *