Help stop HB 2974, a Third Bridge taxing scheme

A bill in the Oregon legislature seems like a backdoor way to get a Third Bridge built in Salem. At least, that's how I and quite a few others view HB 2974.

HB 2974 is sponsored by Rep. Paul Evans, who I usually agree with. But after I read the following email message from a group opposed to the bill, I became convinced that HB 2974 is a bad idea. 

One big reason: four people elected to a Special Bridge District, plus an ODOT representative, would get to increase the taxes of everybody in Marion, Polk, Linn, and Yamhill counties -- without the people in those counties getting to vote on whether they wanted to pay for whatever new bridge those five people dreamed up. Or, whether they'd ever use the bridge.

If you agree HB 2974 is a bad idea, send in testimony opposing the bill as soon as possible, since a hearing on the bill is scheduled for next Monday, April 1, 3 pm, Hearing Room C, before the House Committee on Rules.

The email address for the committee is: [email protected]

Read on for why you should oppose HB 2974.

HB 2974 is a bill from Representative Evans that attempts to get around the City of Salem's recent decision regarding a 3rd bridge across the Willamette River. It was just scheduled for a hearing and possible work session in the House Rules Committee this Monday, April 1, at 3:00 pm.   
 

We need your help to stop this bill.

The Rules Committee members need to hear from as many people as possible ASAP in opposition to the bill, and people need to show up in person to testify against the bill this Monday.
  
HB 2974 authorizes formation of a bridge district in the Salem area, consisting of Linn, Marion, Polk, and Yamhill counties. The bridge district would have the authority to levy property taxes to plan, finance, construct, operate, and maintain bridges over Willamette River in the Salem region. The district board would consist of four members, one elected from each of the four counties and one member representing the Department of Transportation.

Here's why this bill is NOT needed:

• • It overrides the recent decision of the Salem City Council after years of thoughtful debate.
  • Some locations for a bridge that have been discussed would adversely impact the most valuable farmland in the state.
  • The Bridge District will have the authority to tax property owners in 4 counties, most of whom will never use the bridge during the hours of congestion.
  • If tolling is also required to pay for the bridge, drivers will travel another route to avoid the cost, which means all other neighboring bridges will also need to be tolled
  • We are trying to reduce our dependence on traffic throughout the region, and adding another route will merely increase that traffic volume.
  • Building another bridge and more road miles will increase driving, adding to greenhouse gas emissions.  That’s the opposite directing Oregonians want to go.
  • The project is estimated to cost more than $400 million, and therefore consume all or most local transportation investment dollars.
  • ODOT and the City of Salem need to come together to solve the congestion, which occurs only at rush hour times or during infrequent cases of emergency.
  • Instead, actions such as improved ramp and traffic control measures at the feet of the current bridges, must be taken. 
  • Seismic retrofits of the existing bridges are much cheaper than building a new bridge.

The full bill can be read here.

 

Written testimony can be submitted here.
 

Here are the Committee members (click a name for contact info).
 

Representative Paul Holvey (Chair)

House Democratic Leader Jennifer Williamson (Vice-Chair)

House Republican Leader Carl Wilson (Vice-Chair)

Representative Denyc Boles

Representative Rob Nosse

Representative Barbara Smith Warner

Representative Sherrie Sprenger
 

Thank you for taking the time to help stop HB 2974!

 

Comments

[Skyline]

THANK YOU, Brian for the heads up!
One little correction:
"It overrides the recent decision of the Salem City Council after years of thoughtful debate."
Thoughtful debate?
The Salem city council doesn't know their ass from a hole in ground about bridge building!
That has been the entire problem; CLUELESS decision makers!
How much more cockamamie could a bridge location have been than their RIDICULOUS proposal?
" Oh yeah, we are dumping commercial traffic into downtown Salem. HEY; lets divide it up and dump it into another Salem location!!!"
Brilliant.
The HWY 22 East / West "straight shot" solution has been on ODOT's drawing board for decades.
I fully support HB 2974 and will begin to help in any way possible to restore downtown Salem.
Make your wish list and check it twice.
We CAN meet all objectives in one smart move!
Hugs and Kisses!!
XOXOXO

[E.M.]

The 1000 Friends of Oregon (TFO) appear rather biased.

The bill states: "(3) A petition for formation of a bridge district must include a permanent rate limit for operating taxes for the proposed district. A bridge district is a municipal corporation for purposes of ORS 294.305 to 294.565."

Yet the TFO document you cite claims, "four people elected to a Special Bridge District, plus an ODOT representative, would get to increase the taxes of everybody in Marion, Polk, Linn, and Yamhill counties -- without the people in those counties getting to vote on whether they wanted to pay for whatever new bridge those five people dreamed up. Or, whether they'd ever use the bridge." Hogwash!

A petition means voters decide whether the bridge district will be formed, how much the operating levy will be and what portion of each county, if any, portion will be included in the bridge district.

Such scare tactics is unbecoming of TFO.

[Brian Hines]

E.M. I don't agree. You might be right, but I don't read the wording of that section as you do. Here's a fuller excerpt from the bill:

(2) A bridge district may be formed within the boundaries of the capital city region for
the purpose of planning, financing, constructing, operating and maintaining bridges over the Willamette River in the capital city region.
(3) A petition for formation of a bridge district must include a permanent rate limit for operating taxes for the proposed district. A bridge district is a municipal corporation for purposes of ORS 294.305 to 294.565.

So the petition refers to the formation of a bridge district. Obviously no plan for a particular bridge would exist prior to the formation of a bridge district, since the district is supposed to do the planning. Yes, it sounds like a limit on "operating taxes" for the district must be given to voters, assuming this is the meaning of "petition for formation."

But then the bill says the district has the power:

(4) To assess, levy and collect taxes on all taxable property within the boundaries of the district in order to pay:
(a) The costs of planning, financing, constructing, operating and maintaining bridges over the Willamette River in the capital city region;

So the way I read the bill, the governing body of the district can assess taxes on all taxable property to pay for planning, building, and maintaining bridges. Doesn't sound like citizens get a chance to vote on a particular bridge plan. Thus I'm standing by what I said in this post.

[Ken Karp]

The third bridge could and should be constructed. Skyline is correct. ODOT has planned for and moved toward the "straight shot" alternative for decades. The goal of creating a highway that provides a speedy connection between Bend and the coast was established by the Oregon Legislature. Also, Skyline is absolutely correct when he suggests that forcing traffic through the downtown area is just plain wrong. The current route was never intended to be permanent. It was a problem that ODOT intended to remedy and it has always been their responsibility to fix. I am hard pressed to recall any case where a medium sized city allows all traffic from an intrastate highway to be directed through the core of its downtown area.

Just like other similar projects in Oregon, it is primarily the responsibility of the State to finance a project such as this (primarily by obtaining federal funding). Due to the current situation where there are other more pressing needs for highway dollars, the political powers representing this area are relatively impotent, and the reinvigorated interest in a Columbia River Crossing, a more rational and realistic effort than has been made since 2006 will be necessary.

Legal actions and/or the manifesting of public support are ways to compel ODOT to take on projects that they would rather avoid. Paul Evans's proposal, while admittedly unrefined, represents a first step in the right direction. In order to leverage action from ODOT, bridge supporters now need to put something significant on the table and funds from a taxing district, possibly alongside a relatively minor statewide or regional source such as gas taxes or vehicle registration fees. A taxing district that overcomes the challenges of establishing funding levels proportional to benefits may be the critical act necessary to demonstrate widespread support and that kind of support is exactly the type that ODOT responds to.

(A broad overview of a potential taxing district could be made by assigning relative shares to specific areas. An example would be that areas west of the bridge be divided by two north-south lines with one that includes West Salem (3 shares) and one that goes north-south near Otis. The center section, from West Salem to Otis would pay 2 shares and the included areas west of Otis would pay 1 share. Also, all Marion County property owners east of the river would also pay 1 share. The east-west taxing district boundaries should lie approximately between the two main highways to the north and south of Highway 22. This proposal is just a way to get a feel for how to approach the question of: Who pays? The actual amounts committed should be small enough for public support but great enough to provide leverage. Any proportional framework will be an improvement over the previous revenue scheme which placed the onus on all Salem residents).

Keep in mind that the purpose of the district is to exert pressure on ODOT to fulfill their legislative mandate to provide a speedy connection from Bend to the coast. It takes little imagination to see that, by directing highway traffic through what is now a perpetually congested downtown area, ODOT'Slack of action conflicts with their legislatively mandated duty. I am not an attorney but supporters should find out if ODOT's failure to make sufficient efforts to solve this problem may be legally actionable.

As stated earlier, ODOT responds to public opinion and legal threats. When support and thoughtful pressure becomes effective, they will step up and assume their proper role because all bullies are cowards and when you stand up to them with solid arguments that enjoy broad public support, they will either hunker down and do battle (usually with the oftentimes disingenuous excuse that they just cannot afford to help) or they will make real efforts to do as the elected representatives of the citizens of Oregon mandated as enumerated in the Oregon Highway Plan.

I know this to be true because I once organized a group of people who compelled ODOT to abandon plans for a major project that was poorly thought out.