Protecting and Representing the Public Interest by: Ensuring Multnomah County governments comply with Local Budget Law Communicating local government

Transcription

1 Protecting and Representing the Public Interest by: Ensuring Multnomah County governments comply with Local Budget Law Communicating local government financial information in a clear, objective, unbiased manner Providing local government staff with technical advice and assistance Promoting the efficiency and effectiveness of local governments Maywood Park Multnomah County

2 TAX SUPERVISING AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION Current Commission Roster Terry McCall, Chair (503) Brendan P. Watkins David Barringer (503) (503) Steve Nance Gülgün U Mersereau (503) (503) Craig Gibons, Executive Director Tunie Betschart, Budget Analyst Shannon Turk, Budget Analyst Multnomah County Local Governments Multnomah County local governments provide a variety of services to their citizens. The following 41 districts are located primarily within the boundaries of Multnomah County. Districts in bold have populations in excess of 200,000 and therefore have TSCC conduct the annual budget public hearing on its Approved Budget. Districts in italics have elected to not be under the jurisdiction of the Commission. Multnomah County Regional Districts Multnomah County Library Metro Port of Portland TriMet East Multnomah SWCD West Multnomah SWCD Urban Renewal Agencies Gresham Redevelopment Commission Portland Development Commission Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Troutdale Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Wood Village Cities City of Fairview City of Gresham City of Maywood Park City of Portland City of Troutdale City of Wood Village Community Colleges Mt. Hood Community College Portland Community College Multnomah ESD K-12 Schools Portland SD No. 1J Parkrose SD No. 3 Reynolds SD No. 7 Gresham-Barlow SD No. 10J Centennial SD No. 28J Corbett SD No. 39 David Douglas SD No. 40 Riverdale SD No. 51J Fire Districts Multnomah RFPD No. 10 Riverdale RFPD No. 11J Multnomah RFPD No. 14 Sauvie Island RFPD No. 30J Water Districts Alto Park Water Burlington Water Corbett Water Lusted Water Palatine Hill Water Pleasant Home Water Valley View Water County Service Districts Dunthorpe-Riverdale No. 1 Mid-County No. 14

3 About the Commission Mission Statement: The Tax Supervising and Conservation Commission (TSCC) protects and represents the public interest, ensures Multnomah County governments compliance with Local Budget Law, promotes economy and efficiency within those local governments, and provides advice and assistance to them. Purpose and Authority: TSCC is an independent, impartial panel of citizen volunteers established to monitor the financial affairs of local governments. Oregon law created the Commission in 1919 and the first Commission was organized in The Commission, required in counties with over 500,000 population prior to 2007, has jurisdiction over all local governments required to follow local budget law and which have more real market value within Multnomah County than in any other county. Those with a population under 200,000 may opt out from the Commission s jurisdiction. The TSCC presently oversees the budgeting and taxing activities of 26 municipal corporations, including Oregon s largest: county (Multnomah), city (Portland), school district (Portland), community college (PCC), education service district (Multnomah), port (Portland), mass transit district (TriMet), regional government (Metro), and urban renewal agency (Portland Development Commission). The total budget of the 26 districts under TSCC jurisdiction is $10.2 billion or 89% of the total budgets for all districts in Multnomah County. Five Commissioners are appointed by the Governor to four-year terms and serve without compensation. Administrative employees, currently 2.4 FTE, are appointed by the Commission. The Attorney General serves as legal counsel. Operating expenses are limited by statute and the total amount is indexed 3% per year ($315, ) which come out of the County s general fund. The County is reimbursed for one-half of actual net expenses by the other districts., The Commission serves the taxpayers by providing an extensive review of the annual budgets of the 26 local governments within its jurisdiction. The reviews are both procedural and substantive in nature. Procedural checks establish compliance with laws governing local finance, particularly local budget law. They include verifying that the approved tax levies are within the constitutional limits and substantiated by budgets, ensuring that public notice requirements have been met, and validating that financial information is included in adequate detail. A substantive review of program content, the reasonableness of estimates, and coordination of financial planning among various units is also performed. All budgets for districts under TSCC s jurisdiction must be reviewed by the Commission prior to adoption by the governing body. The Commission provides an independent and objective forum, by way of public hearings, at which citizens may obtain information and express their views regarding the budget. Commission members represent the public at these hearings by asking questions indicative of the community at large. These annual public hearings are mandatory for the eleven largest entities and may be requested by the other taxing districts. The Commission holds additional public hearings throughout the year on every new local option levy and General Obligation Bond measure request placed before the voters. 2

4 Introduction The Commissioners and staff of the Multnomah County Tax Supervising and Conservation Commission (TSCC) are pleased to present this summary version of the 92st edition of our Annual Report. From its inception in 1921, one of TSCC s primary responsibilities has been to report financial information concerning Multnomah County governments in a clear, objective and understandable format. Local budget law in Oregon is predicated on citizen involvement. The more citizens know about their government the better the relationship is between government and its citizens. The information contained in this report is intended for the benefit of citizens and public officials alike. This summary version of the Annual Report is being produced in the hope that the less expensive, easier to distribute format will result in more citizens having access to the information. The full version of the Annual Report is available on the Commission s web site, We hope you find the information useful. We welcome your comments as to how this Annual Report Summary could better serve you. Combined Budget Totals The combined budgets of all 41 municipal corporations that are principally located in Multnomah County for the fiscal year total $11.4 billion. This is an $46 Million (0.4%) increase from Most districts budget an ending fund balance (EFB) that, by law, cannot be spent during the fiscal year. The ending balance provides money to operate at the beginning of the following fiscal year before property tax revenues become available in November. Many districts also transfer money from one fund to another, thereby double counting the amounts in the total budget. For these reasons, it is common to look at budgets without including ending fund balances and fund transfers. Deducting these two types of budget requirements from all 41 budgets, the net total budget amount for fiscal year is $9.2 billion, a increase of $137 million (3%) from the total net budget. Another set of numbers to look at are the budgets for the General Fund only, which is where most districts budget the majority of their daily operations. This number excludes capital construction budgets that can swing widely up or down from year to year, grants that can only be spent for specific purposes, bonded debt levies and other non-operational expenditures. For the total combined General Fund budgets of the 41 districts is $4.1 billion, $16 million less than the previous year. All three sets of numbers are shown on the chart on the following page. 3

5 Combined Budget Totals (Continued) $ Billions 12 Combined Budget Totals Combined Totals Totals Less EFB & Transfers General Fund Only Combined Budget Revenues The total combined budgeted resources, net of transfers and beginning balances, for all 41 local governments principally located within Multnomah County is $11.4 billion. The following pie chart shows the breakdown between the various sources of revenue that local governments depend on. Other Taxes includes the county s business income taxes, cities hotel/motel taxes, TriMet s payroll tax, and other taxes. Inter-Gov Revenue 33% Combined Budget Revenues by Type Debt Proceeds 12% Utilities 8% Fees & Charges 17% Other Tax 7% Property Tax 21% Other 2% 4

6 Combined Budget Revenues (Continued) Intergovernmental: Total budgeted Intergovernmental Revenue (IGR) is $2.3 billion, 33% of the combine total revenues. Intergovernmental Revenue is the single largest revenue source for local governments in the County. It consists of funds transferred from the federal and state governments and funds transferred within local governments. The funds are transferred as grants, shared revenue, and payment for services. The Intergovernmental Revenue from federal and state sources are tax receipts coming back info the Multnomah County economy. The annual amount of these revenues increased from $1.77 billion last year to $1.84 billion this year (4%). Fees & Charges and Utilities: Fees, charges, utilities, and franchise fees comprise $1.8 billion (26%) of budgeted local government revenues. The largest categories of this revenue is Enterprise Activities ($573 million) and Utility billings ($557 million). Enterprise activities include revenue generating activities such as the Port of Portland s airport and marine operations, school cafeterias and bookstores, and Metro s MERC operations, Property Taxes: While the implementation of two 1990's property tax limitation measures has slowed the growth of property taxes, they will still account for 21% of local government revenue in Multnomah County in The property tax revenue budget of $1.4 billion is $58 million (4%) higher than Debt Proceeds: Multnomah County local governments have budgeted $861 million in debt proceeds for That is up 63% from Debt proceeds make up 12% of total revenue, up from 8% in The bulk of debt proceeds are for the City of Portland which has budgeted $515 million in projects to be paid for by debt proceeds. Other Taxes: This revenue category comprises all the taxes levied by Multnomah County local governments that are not property taxes. Other Taxes total $506 million or 7% of total revenue. TriMet's payroll tax, at $289 million accounts for the largest portion. County business income taxes and lodging taxes account for $139 million. The remainder includes six minor taxes: vehicle and gas taxes ($36 million), Metro excise tax ($19 million), Local Improvement District Assessments ($9 million), School District Construction Excise tax ($3 million), and the Portland Arts Tax ($11 million). 5

7 Combined Budget Expenditures by Object Total combined requirements are $11.38 billion, less than half of one percent higher than budget of $11.34 billion. As shown in the figure below, personnel services and materials and services make up the two largest categories of expenditures, 32% and 28% respectively. Compared with , Personnel Services increased 4%; Materials & Services increased 6%; while Debt Services and Capital Outlay increased less than 1%. Funds set aside for Contingency decreased 10%. Debt Service 10% Combined Budget Expenditures by Object Contingency 13% Personnel Services 32% Capital Outlay 17% Materials & Services 28% Combined Budget Expenditures by Entity In summary, the data below shows that the county and the cities and their urban renewal agencies account for $4.5 billion in expenditures (49% of the total). Education districts account for $2.5 billion (27%). Special districts account for $2.1 billion or 24% of the total local government expenditures in the county. Combine Budget Expenditures by Entity Cities 32% Community Colleges 10% School Districts 17% TriMet 11% Port 8% Metro 4% Special Districts 1% Urban Renewal Agencies Multnomah 3% County 14% 6

8 State School Funding School districts in Oregon have become increasingly reliant on the state for funds. This is principally because of the passage of Measure 5 in 1990, which limited the amount of property taxes education districts could collect to $5 per $1,000 of real market value. At the same time, Measure 5 required the State to replace property tax revenue lost due the measure s limitations. The Legislature determines how much money is available from both local sources, primarily property taxes, and state sources such as income taxes. Based on the total number of students, a per student amount is calculated. Property taxes from each school districts permanent rate are deducted from the General Purpose Grant to determine the amount the school district will receive from the State School Fund Grant. Generally, the funding per student is equalized, regardless of how much in property taxes a school district receives. As shown in the following graph, when Measure 5 passed, the state provided approximately 28% of K-12 school district funding. With the full implementation of Measure 5 the percentage increased to 70%. For the fiscal year the percentage is 67%. State and Local School Funding Formula Revenue State of Oregon $ Billions State Local Source: State of Oregon Department of Education Soon after the state took over more responsibility for funding schools, it began the process of equalizing school funding. School districts with comparably higher levels of funding per student (from both local and state sources) were flat funded while districts that had lower amounts of funding were increased. For example, in , Reynolds School District received approximately 66.7% of the amount Portland Public Schools received on a per students basis - today Reynolds actually receives more than Portland. Per student funding is based on enrollment. There are two different enrollment numbers: average daily membership, resident (ADMr) and average daily membership, weighted (ADMw). The ADMr number represents the average number of students enrolled in a district on a daily basis. The ADMw is an adjusted number to compensate for the higher costs of educating certain groups of students, such as English as Second Language (ESL), handicapped, pregnant or parenting, income at or below poverty and students in foster care. 7

9 Staffing Levels The table below tracks the number of employees by the number of full time equivalent (FTE) positions. Staffing levels have increased over the past year by 954 FTE. Of the 31 districts that have employees, only Portland Development Commission reduced staffing (by 28 FTE or 23%). David Douglas and Portland Public School Districts each added FTE (289 and 281 respectively). The David Douglas increase reflects the district s assumption of an early childhood program. The Portland Public Schools increase reflects increased revenues for teaching and support staff. Corbett School district increased FTE by 32 in anticipation of the closing of the Charter School and the assumption of students and staff. Total Number of Staff Positions (Full Time Equivalents) Entity Change Multnomah County 4,527 4,473 4,571 4, Regional Districts Metro Port TriMet 2,450 2,536 2,598 2, East Multnomah SWCD West Multnomah SWCD Subtotal Regional 4,011 4,095 4,166 4, Cities Portland Development Commission City of Fairview City of Gresham City of Maywood Park City of Portland 5,799 5,696 5,593 5, City of Troutdale City of Wood Village Subtotal Cities 6,591 6,479 6,361 6, Community Colleges Mt. Hood CC Portland CC 2,851 2,851 2,952 2,952 0 Subtotal CC's 3,641 3,655 3,751 3,754 3 K-12 Education Education Service District Portland SD 1J 5,068 4,932 5,000 5, Parkrose SD Reynolds SD 7 1,056 1,053 1,092 1, Gresham Barlow SD 10J Centennial SD 28J Corbett SD David Douglas SD 40 1,065 1,039 1,056 1, Riverdale SD 51J Subtotal K-12 9,849 9,656 9,569 10, Various Other Total 28,627 28,366 28,427 29,

10 Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) State agencies and many municipal corporations provide retirement benefits to their employees through Oregon s Public Employee Retirement System (PERS). In Multnomah County, 23 of the 41 districts participate. The PERS system is a combination of the employee portion, a defined contribution retirement plan and the employer portion, a defined benefit plan. Employees hired after August 29, 2003 are technically not members of PERS. The Legislature created a new plan for those new hires to reduce costs: the Oregon Public Service Retirement Plan or OPSRP. The employer rate varies depending on the estimated long term cost of providing the promised benefits to each district s employees. Many districts are grouped together, or pooled, while other districts have rates calculated just for them. Depending on employee demographics, the rate of one district may be higher or lower than a similar district. The PERS Board establishes the employer rate every two years based on an analysis of future liabilities. The following table lists the employer rates as of July 1, 2013 and July 1, PERS Employer Rates July 1, 2013 July 1, 2015 Tier 1 / 2 OPSRP Tier 1 / 2 OPSRP State of Oregon General Government Districts Multnomah County Metro Port of Portland West Multnomah SWCD City of Portland/PDC City of Fairview City of Greshm City of Troutdale City of Wood Village Corbett RFPD No Corbett Water Education Districts Mt. Hood Community College Portland Community College Education Service District Portland SD 1J Parkrose SD Reynold SD Gresham Barlow SD 10J Centennial SD 28J Corbett SD David Douglas SD Riverdale SD 11J

11 Oregon s Property Tax System Property taxes are the most common form of tax for funding local government services across the United States. While some states forego the use of the income tax (like the State of Washington) and some states do not have a sales tax (Oregon), all 50 states utilize the property tax. The property tax system is ideally suited to fund local government for two reasons: 1) it can easily be administered at the local level since property, unlike income tax earners or shoppers, cannot move to different locations with a lower tax burden, and 2) property values, and thus revenue, are more stable than either incomes or sales. However, property taxes may be the most unpopular type of tax. That is because it assumes that an owner of more valuable property has the ability to pay a higher tax. While this is generally true, it does not factor in fluctuations in income. An executive earning a six figure income may be able to afford a high property tax bill on their expensive home until he or she gets laid off. Even though their income has declined substantially, the property tax bill remains the same. Another reason the property tax is so unpopular is that the bill usually must be paid all at once. This differs from both the income and the sales tax which are paid incrementally during the year. It is interesting to note that property tax limitation measures in Oregon are not new. The very first tax of any kind in the state was a property tax that was adopted in 1858, prior to statehood. It was immediately repealed as being too unpopular. And in 1929, Oregon voters adopted the state s first income tax as a means of limiting property taxes. Local Government Dependence on Property Taxes In Multnomah County property taxes help fund local services such as police and fire protection, parks, education, urban development, and social services. For the fiscal year, $1.44 billion has been imposed in ad valorem property taxes, a 5.9% increase over the prior year s amount of $1.36 billion. An additional $9 million in other taxes (late filing penalties, back taxes from farm and forest land special assessment disqualification, drainage district fees, and Oregon Department of Forestry per-acre assessments) has also been imposed. The total amount of taxes imposed in is $1.45 billion. Fire districts and soil and water conservation districts are extremely reliant on property taxes. Alto Park Water District, which only contracts for fire protection services, relies on property taxes for 100% of its revenues. The more enterprise oriented organizations are not as heavily dependent on property taxes. Four districts levy less than their full authority; Multnomah County Library District, City of Maywood Park, Palatine Hill Water District and Valley View Water District. Palatine Hill Water District levies none of its $ permanent rate 10

12 Taxable Property All property is subject to property taxation unless otherwise exempted by state law. Generally, personal property used by individuals, public property, religious and non-profit, charitable use property is exempt from taxation. Property subject to taxation includes real property (land, buildings and fixed machinery), personal property that is used in business (machinery, equipment and office furniture), and public utility property (electric, communications and gas utilities as well as transportation companies such as railroads and airlines). Assessed Value by Type In 1997 Measure 50 separated assessed value from real market value. Assessed values are limited to 3% increases a year unless there is new construction or disqualification from special assessment or exemption. In these cases the assessed value can increase more than 3%. Even if the market value is reduced, the assessed value can still go up by 3%. Once the assessed value catches up to market value, it can only go up if the market value goes up. The following chart shows the breakdown of assessed value by property type. Nearly 62% of assessed value in Multnomah County is residential which includes multiple family units of five or less. The Other category includes farm, forest and recreational property. Property tax amounts are calculated using each property s assessed value. Assessed value in Multnomah County totals $69.2 billion in , a 4.6% increase over the assessed value in Assessed Value by Property Type Multnomah County Commercial/ Industrial 23% Personal 3% Residential 62% Utilities 5% Multiple Housing 6% Other 1% 11

13 Real Market Value by Type The chart below shows the breakdown of real market value by property type. The breakdown is similar to assessed value. Typically residential property is assessed at a higher percentage of Real Market Value than is commercial/industrial property. The result is that commercial/industrial property makes up a larger percentage of market value than of assessed value. Real Market Value by Property Type Multnomah County Commercial/ Industrial 26% Personal 2% Residential 62% Utilities 3% Multiple Housing 7% Other 1% Exempt Property Exemptions are used to encourage social welfare issues, promote economic growth, and to preserve natural resources. There are over 100 property tax exemptions in Oregon. These exemptions vary from totally exempting the property from taxation as is done with property used exclusively for a religious, fraternal, or governmental purpose, or personal property such as farm equipment; exempting a portion of the value as done for disabled war veterans and some commercial properties; or specially assessing a property by assigning a lower value for taxation purposes such as farmland, forestland, and open spaces. The assessed value used for calculating taxes is 60.6% of all real market value in the county. This takes into account both exemptions and the value limitations of Measure 50. A total of nearly $24.7 billion has been exempted in

14 Value Growth The value of residential property continues to grow faster than other types of property as shown in the following graph. Since , residential value, as a percent of total assessed value, has increased from 54% to 62% in Over the same time, utility property values have fallen from 5.9% to 4.8%. $ Billions Residential Assessed Value vs. Other Values Multnomah County Residential Commercial/Industrial Utility Assessed Value Growth by Area Assessed value growth on unchanged properties is limited to a maximum of three percent per year. Growth beyond the three percent indicates new construction or improvements being added to the tax roll. Some properties, such as business personal property and utility property, depreciate in value so the assessed value declines over time. While net assessed value grew by 4.6% countywide, there was variation throughout the county. As shown in the graph below the highest growth areas in were the cities of Portland and Troutdale at 16% and 12% respectively. Values are net of urban renewal excess value which is not available to taxing districts. Including excess value county-wide values increased 3.4%. This indicates that property inside urban renewal areas increased in value more than property outside urban renewal areas. The City of Portland accounts for 81.6% of the total assessed value in Multnomah County. This percentage has been increasing annually for eight years. Changes in Assessed Value Growth for Cities within Multnomah County 20% 15% % 5% 0% Fairview Gresham Maywood Park Portland Troutdale Wood Village 13

15 Property Tax Rates Property owners are taxed on the combined rates of general government, education and debt service to repay bonds exempt from Measure 5 for all overlapping governments that provide services to their property. Each unique combination of taxing districts is called a tax code area (TCA). Permanent tax rates are the primary factor in determining tax burdens. Rates are calculated for General Obligation Bonds, fixed dollar Local Option Levies and Portland s FPD&R levy. As shown in the graph below, total tax rates vary considerably. Within Portland, the combined rate for is $ per $1,000 of assessed value. The total tax rate for properties in Corbett, outside of any incorporated city, is $ Tax Rates for by Category and Tax Code Area Multnomah County Per $1,000 AV Portland Gresham Maywood Park Exempt Bonds General Government Education Troutdale Corbett Fairview Wood Village Code 001 Code 026 Code 331 Code 242 Code 358 Code 240 Code 241 Total Property Taxes Imposed The following graph shows the total amount of property taxes imposed by governments in Multnomah County in A total of $1,449,548,240 is to be collected, a $79.7 million increase over the amount. 1,500 Total Property Taxes Imposed within Multnomah County $ Millions 1,

16 Types of Property Taxes Property taxes imposed increased by 5.9% in The largest percentage increase was 16% in local option levies and it was primarily due to a decrease in compression. The permanent rate and gap levies increased by 6%, primarily due to the increase in assessed value and decrease in compression. Bond levies increased 2%, a normal fluctuation due to changing levels of debt service payments due. Type of Type of Property Taxes, and within Multnomah County Permanent Rate Local Option Bond Levies Total & Gap Levies Levies Imposed District $ Millions Chg $ Millions Chg $ Millions Chg $ Millions Chg County % % % % Cities % % % % Schools % % % % Special Districts % % % % Urban Renewal % Total Taxes 1, , % % % 1, , % Measure 5 Reductions Ballot Measure 5, a constitutional initiative passed by Oregon Voters in 1990, established maximum tax rates for two broad categories of taxing districts: education (K-12, ESD s and community colleges) and general government (all non-education districts). Levies for bonded debt were exempt from the limitations. Education districts are limited to $5 per $1,000 of market value and general government districts are limited to $10. Measure 50 reduced education districts tax rates substantially and uses the real market value to test the limits (as opposed to the new, lower assessed value) so the amount of taxes compressed to keep taxes within the education limit has been reduced significantly. The opposite is true for general government districts: Measure 50 has resulted in more compression loss since generally tax rates were increased. Changes in compression loss can occur from new local option levies or when those same levies expire. The large increases in losses in both categories the last two years is due to reductions in real market value, the values used to test the limits. As these values go down and assessed values go up, more properties are compressed. 15

17 Urban Renewal In theory, urban renewal is relatively simple. By incurring debt to pay for public improvements within a specific plan area, it is expected that property values will increase due to private investments that would not otherwise occur. This new value is called increment or excess value. The property taxes from this increase in value is then given to the urban renewal agency to pay off the debt. Revenue generated in this manner is referred to as tax increment financing (TIF) or division of tax revenue. If there is no increase in assessed value, the urban renewal agency does not collect any revenue. Local taxing districts, such as the county, city, school district, fire district and others, continue to receive the property taxes from the assessed value the district had before the urban renewal plan area plan was formed. This value is called the frozen value. There are four urban renewal agencies in Multnomah County: Gresham Redevelopment Commission, Portland Development Commission, the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Troutdale, and the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Wood Village. In addition, since the City of Lake Oswego s boundary crosses into Multnomah County that city s urban renewal taxes appear on a small number of tax bills in this county. Conversely, a portion of the urban renewal taxes for PDC come from Clackamas and Washington counties since the boundary of the City of Portland extends in to those other counties. Urban Renewal Taxes Imposed The following chart shows a history of Urban Renewal taxes imposed dating back to , the first year prior to Ballot Measure 5. The amounts include PDC s special levy. The City of Portland chose not to levy any urban renewal taxes between and in order to avoid the Measure 5 impact on other noneducation taxing districts. For , total taxes imposed for urban renewal agencies in Multnomah County are $128 million. Of this total amount, $114 million came from division of tax calculations while $14 million came from the imposed special levy for PDC. Measure 5 compression limited taxes imposed. Excess value increased 2.5% compared to values net of excess value which increased 4.8% county-wide. Urban Renewal Taxes Imposed $ Millions

18 Tax Distribution In taxing districts with large taxpaying entities, the failure of a taxpaying entity to pay taxes on time could impair the district s revenue. So the county distributes all tax dollars proportionally to all taxing districts. This county-wide distribution of each tax dollar moderates the adverse impact of individual taxpayers deferred tax payments on any one taxing district. Property Tax Distribution by Entity Multnomah County 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% County Regional Urban Renewal Cities Education Other Tax Collections Property is valued as of January 1 of each year, and the taxes become a lien on July 1. Tax statements are mailed out in October, and the first tax payment is due November 15. Installment payments are permitted without penalty with one-third due November 15 th, February 15 th and May 15 th. A 3% discount is given if full payment is made by November 15. A 2% discount is given for a two-thirds payment. Interest accrues at a rate of 1 1/3% per month for late payments. Real property taxes, if unpaid, become delinquent on May 15, while personal property taxes become delinquent with any unpaid installment. Foreclosure proceedings on real property are initiated three years after delinquency. Warrants for unpaid personal property taxes are issued 30 days after the taxes are due. Tax collection rates as of June 30 increased starting in until Rates fell slightly for two consecutive years, then increased two years and decreased once again in After netting out discounts, 95.39% of current year taxes were paid as of June 30, This is an increase over the 94.72% collected in The collection rate history closely follows changes in the economy and the property tax system. Recessions in , , and reduced collection rates. An increase in the delinquent interest rate to 16% annually starting in 1989 increased the collection rate. 17

19 Outstanding Debt Local governments are authorized by charter and/or state statute to issue debt. The type of debt issued varies, is incurred over short and long term periods, and is used for various public purposes. The types of long-term debt outstanding as of June 30, 2014 in Multnomah County are shown in the following chart. At the end of fiscal year , outstanding debt totaled $7.016 billion - down from $7.077 billion on June 30, Outstanding Long Term Debt by Type as of June 30, 2014 Revenue Bonds 50% PERS Bonds 17% Limited Tax Bonds / Full Faith & Credit 9% Urban Renewal Tax Increment Bonds 7% General Obligation Bonds 15% Other 2% The graph below reflects the outstanding debt by the various entities. $3,500 Outstanding Long Term Debt as of June 30, 2014 $ Million $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 City of Portland Education (Combined) Port of Portland TriMet Multnomah County Metro City of Gresham All Others 18

20 Debt Summary Debt Summary By Bond Type Amount Amount of Outstanding Original Issue 6/30/2014 Interest SPECIFIC AUTHORITY General Obligation Bonds 1,392,033,344 1,042,438,759 45,959,284 Urban Renewal Tax Increment Bonds 604,325, ,776,820 23,708,848 Improvement Bonds/Bancroft Bonds 96,265,000 48,625,000 2,109,903 FULL FAITH AND CREDIT Limited Tax Obligation Bonds/ Full Faith & Credit Obligations 885,558, ,381,865 26,488,902 PERS Bonds 1,496,605,795 1,188,996,835 85,012,383 Certificates of Participation 10,090,000 3,985, ,063 Long Term Loans - State & Other 121,197,741 88,325,511 2,485,152 Lease/Purchase Obligations 13,041,738 2,102, ,706 REVENUE Revenue Bonds - Public 4,303,959,100 3,466,769, ,722,477 Industrial Revenue Bonds - Private 38,355,000 29,670,000 0 GRAND TOTAL 8,961,431,260 7,016,071, ,779,717 Debt Summary By Local Units Multnomah County 476,410, ,959,048 23,545,027 Metro 385,980, ,820,000 11,760,999 Port of Portland 792,381, ,585,875 27,262,211 TriMet 800,907, ,460,876 28,310,524 Cities (including Urban Renewal Districts) 4,573,061,217 3,496,742, ,400,916 Education Districts 1,924,464,446 1,541,284,640 82,267,455 Fire Districts 300,000 50,000 3,050 Water Districts 7,925,750 6,168, ,535 GRAND TOTAL 8,961,431,260 7,016,071, ,779,717 19

21 SUMMARY of BUDGET TOTALS Multnomah County Actual Actual Budget Budget Multnomah County 1,356,812,292 1,489,338,455 1,537,916,585 1,626,771,074 Regional Districts: Multnomah County Library ,282,054 69,354,907 Metro 589,849, ,740, ,590, ,840,994 Port of Portland 995,803, ,946, ,444, ,055,649 TriMet Transportation District 956,081,465 1,377,645,153 1,225,669,058 1,178,638,912 East Multnomah Soil & Water Conservation 14,193,032 13,098,084 13,199,918 13,299,246 West Multnomah Soil & Water Conservation 1,806,948 1,984,527 2,162,850 2,731,055 Sub-Total Regional Districts 2,557,734,548 2,841,414,693 2,649,348,916 2,703,920,763 Gresham Redevelopment Commission 15,255,229 14,282,390 19,677,510 28,540,700 Portland Development Commission 251,510, ,816, ,328, ,023,648 Urban Renewal Agency City of Troutdale 189, ,983 2,705,856 2,475,523 Urban Renewal Agency City of Wood Village 38,521 28,038 23,200 65,650 Cities: Fairview 18,533,377 18,481,314 18,609,124 18,527,897 Gresham 301,311, ,437, ,424, ,694,959 Maywood Park 496, , , ,455 Portland 3,454,875,376 3,591,775,249 3,617,362,198 3,635,925,673 Troutdale 37,776,947 33,901,681 30,855,886 31,535,478 Wood Village 9,541,305 7,638,881 7,589,454 8,066,503 Sub-Totals UR Agencies and Cities 4,089,528,488 4,242,391,498 4,369,178,087 4,417,460,486 Community Colleges: Mt. Hood Community College 154,000, ,981, ,535, ,724,247 Portland Community College 709,594, ,540, ,892, ,465,880 Sub-Total Community Colleges 863,595,476 1,063,522,136 1,126,427, ,190,127 K-12 School Districts: Multnomah Education Service District 93,020,081 94,336,236 91,063,731 91,452,253 Portland 724,790, ,460, ,950, ,120,133 Parkrose 108,410, ,843,879 85,803,291 61,397,991 Reynolds 143,204, ,970, ,537, ,703,351 Gresham-Barlow 131,186, ,774, ,784, ,629,544 Centennial 77,470,113 73,583,027 75,855,610 81,464,360 Corbett 12,500,783 14,702,783 13,200,882 13,846,268 David Douglas 137,222, ,471, ,306, ,572,926 Riverdale 12,300,932 12,571,486 12,350,645 13,679,042 Sub-Total K-12 School Districts 1,440,105,936 1,654,714,848 1,632,853,479 1,648,865,868 Rural Fire Protection Districts: Multnomah Fire 10 2,940,891 3,483,944 4,566,374 8,692,215 Riverdale Fire 11J 1,911,311 1,931,091 1,978,582 2,143,921 Multnomah Fire 14 1,235,435 1,249,421 1,405,030 1,031,901 Sauvie Island 529, , , ,953 Sub-Total Rural Fire Districts 6,617,346 7,319,278 8,649,481 12,575,990 Water Districts: Alto Park 64,880 77,580 90,316 90,035 Burlington 563, ,421 1,608,005 1,386,835 Corbett 1,384,661 1,370,123 1,153,513 1,175,390 Lusted 1,442, , , ,337 Palatine Hill 1,691,327 1,990,216 2,115,700 2,373,240 Pleasant Home 309,309 2,260,048 3,792,276 2,604,958 Valley View 1,259,318 1,274,683 1,247,731 1,317,741 Sub-Total Water Districts 6,715,721 8,352,710 10,567,394 9,521,536 County Service Districts: Dunthorpe-Riverdale Sewer 1,567,147 1,725,873 1,882,200 2,307,000 Mid-County Street Lighting 614, , , ,500 Sub-Total County Service Districts 2,181,532 2,382,744 2,629,700 3,166,500 GRAND TOTAL OF BUDGETS 10,323,291,339 11,309,436,362 11,337,570,754 11,384,472,344 20

22 Multnomah County Assessed Value in Billions $ $ $ Real Market Value in Billions $ $ $ Operations $ $ $ Library Local Option Historical Society Local Option $ $ $ $ $ $ Debt Service $ $ $ Total Property Tax Rate $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $287,061,039 $252,638,140 $268,767,143 Measure 5 Loss $-33,963,432 $-21,898,028 $-17,703,408 Number of Employees (FTE s) 4, , ,660.2 Multnomah County Library Assessed Value in Billions Real Market Value (M-5) in Billions Operations Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A $ $ $ $ $66,092,258 $-5,587, $ $108,174 $ $ $70,588,146 $-4,493,602 Metro Assessed Value in Billions $ $ $ Real Market Value in Billions $ $ $ Operations $ $ $ Local Option Levy $0 $ $ Debt Service $ $.2745 $.2659 Total Property Tax Rate $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $53,101,157 $60,993,871 $63,533,510 Measure 5 Loss $-295,537 $-3,030,520 $-2,907,008 Number of Employees (FTE s) Convention Center Activity: Number Convention/Trade Shows N/A Attendance 922, ,000 N/A Zoo Attendance 1,610,000 1,645,843 1,575,000 Metro Facilities Solid Waste Tonnage 1,371,658 1,264,901 1,487,598 Port of Portland Assessed Value in Billions $ $ $ Real Market Value in Billions $ $ $ Operations $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $10,002,222 $10,256,962 $10,802,747 Measure 5 Loss $-215,426 $-335,338 $-269,346 Number of Employees (FTE s) $786.6 $785.7 $78937 PDX Passenger Volume in Millions Air Cargo (lbs in millions) Marine Container Boxes 210, , ,500 Automobiles 250, , ,500 21

23 TriMet Assessed Value in Billions $ $ $ Real Market Value in Billions $ $ $ Debt Service $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $0 $0 $0 Measure 5 Loss N/A N/A N/A Number of Employees (FTE s) 2, , ,694.9 Ridership: Bus Boardings 59,626,800 59,768,310 60,034,200 LIFT Boardings 1,000,164 1,037,700 1,036,824 Light Rail Boardings 40,716,419 39,120,500 38,228,800 WES Commuter 447, , ,270 Total Boardings 101,790, ,368,360 99,912,094 Average Weekday Ridership 324, , ,774 East Multnomah Soil & Water CD Assessed Value in Millions $ $ $ Real Market Value in Millions $ $ $ Operations $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $3,950,050 $3,951,842 $4,205,515 Measure 5 Loss $-190,479 $-297,613 $-249,300 Number of Employees (FTE s) West Multnomah Soil & Water CD Assessed Value in Millions $ $ $ Real Market Value in Millions $ $ $ Operations $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $1,245,180 $1,247,845 $1,346,816 Measure 5 Loss $-82,344 $-131,912 $-99,397 Number of Employees (FTE s) Gresham Redevelopment Comm Base Frozen Value in Millions $437.5 $437.5 $437.5 Increased Value in Millions $195.6 $207.3 $226.0 Total Value All Plan Areas in Millions $633.1 $644.8 $663.5 Number of Plan Areas Total Taxes Imposed $3,021,085 $3,427,274 $3,688,006 Measure 5 Loss $-386 $-6,328 $-4,487 PDC Base Frozen Value in Billions $4.460 $5.518 $5.450 Excess Value Used in Billions $5.120 $5.333 $5.450 Excess Value Not Used in Billions $2.755 $2.877 $3.254 Total Value of Plan Areas in Billions $ $ $ Number of Plan Areas Special Levy Tax Rate $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $112,609,928 $120,484,029 $124,509,190 Measure 5 Loss $-13,357,482 $-17,168,360 $-12,653,326 Number of Employees (FTE s) Urban Renewal Agency City of Troutdale Base Frozen Value in Millions $19.2 $19.2 $19.2 Excess Value in Millions $7.0 $8.6 $10.5 Total Value All Plan Areas in Millions $26.2 $27.8 $29.7 Number of Plan Areas Total Taxes Imposed $115,246 $150,653 $181,425 Measure 5 Loss $-8 $-119 $-83 22

24 Urban Renewal Agency City of Wood Village Base Frozen Value in Millions $38.3 $38.3 $38.3 Excess Value in Millions $0.9 $2.7 $3.9 Total Value All Plan Areas in Millions $39.2 $41.0 $42.2 Number of Plan Areas Total Taxes Imposed $13,580 $43,846 $61,733 Measure 5 Loss $0 $0 $0 City of Fairview Assessed Value in Millions $600.1 $617.9 $635.0 Real Market Value in Millions Operations $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $2,101,858 $2,162,177 $2,215,606 Measure 5 Loss $-3,608 $-2,021 $-2,039 Number of Employees (FTE s) City of Gresham Assessed Value in Billions $6.936 $7.119 $7.486 Real Market Value in Billions $8.248 $8.351 $9.167 Operations $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $24,909,779 $24,976,207 $26,257,582 Measure 5 Loss $-1,556 $-23,702 $-16,710 Number of Employees (FTE s) City of Maywood Park Assessed Value in Millions $56.5 $58.6 $60.4 Real Market Value in Millions $67.3 $78.1 $87.9 Operations $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $98,931 $67,290 $80,297 Measure 5 Loss $-4 $-3 $-3 Number of Employees (FTE s) City of Portland Assessed Value in Billions $ $ $ Real Market Value in Billions $ $ $ Operations $ $ $ Fire Police Disability & Retirement $ $ $ Children s Initiative Local Option $ $ $ Debt Service $ $ $ Total Property Tax Rate $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $340,416,959 $346,660,677 $369,994,297 Measure 5 Loss $-30,532,765 $-44,869,085 $-37,395,091 Number of Employees (FTE s) 5, , ,628.5 City of Troutdale Assessed Value in Billions $1.122 $1.164 $1.289 Real Market Value in Billions $1.338 $1.367 $1.654 Operations $ $ $ Debt Service $ $ $ Total Property Tax Rate $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $5,673,871 $5,848,295 $6,262,727 Measure 5 Loss $-270 $-3,388 $-2,191 Number of Employees (FTE s)

25 City of Wood Village Assessed Value in Millions $246.5 $249.7 $257.6 Real Market Value in Millions $383.9 $370.1 $384.4 Operations $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $767,627 $772,426 $793,330 Measure 5 Loss $-1 $0 $1 Number of Employees (FTE s) Mt. Hood Community College Assessed Value in Billions $ $ $ Real Market Value in Billions $ $ $ Operations $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $10,317,167 $10,546,928 $11,263,539 Measure 5 Loss $-351,378 $-289,453 $-203,346 Number of Employees (FTE s) Enrollment: Headcount 29,988 26,748 24,876 Full Time Equivalents 9,802 9,293 8,642 Tuition Per Credit Hour $89.0 $89.0 $92.0 Portland Community College Assessed Value in Billions $ $ $115,677 Real Market Value in Billions $ $ $ Operations $ $ $ Debt Service $ $ $ Total Property Tax Rate $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $67,667,717 $77,334,070 $77,481,046 Measure 5 Loss $-407,037 $-385,685 $-306,683 Number of Employees (FTE s) 2, , ,952.0 Enrollment: Headcount 94,490 88,179 TBD Full Time Equivalents 33,389 31,940 28,000 Tuition per credit hour $82 $88 $88 Multnomah ESD Assessed Value in Billions $ $ $70,313 Real Market Value in Billions $ $ $ Operations $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $26,889,726 $27,715,904 $29,229,148 Measure 5 Loss $-554,318 $-520,314 $-386,889 Number of Employees (FTE s) Enrollment: County-Wide Extended-ADMw* 109, , ,663.2 *Latest May estimates from ODE web site 24

26 Portland Public SD 1J Assessed Value in Billions $ $ $ Real Market Value in Billions $ $ $ Operations $ $ $ Local Option for Operations $ $ $ Debt Service $0 $ $ Total Property Tax Rate $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $263,417,054 $321,194,027 $341,102,138 Measure 5 Loss $-31,042,586 $-29,206,924 $-25,059,758 Number of Employees (FTE s) 4, , ,281.0 Average Daily Enrollment - ADMr 44, , ,434.0 Weighted Enrollment Extended - 53, ,919.6 ADMw Parkrose SD Assessed Value in Billions $3.097 $3.218 $3.484 Real Market Value in Billions $3.944 $4.010 $4.499 Operations $ $ $ Debt Service $ $ $ Total Property Tax Rate $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $17,730,148 $18,263,870 $19,255,632 Measure 5 Loss $-745,617 $-756,293 $-739,977 Number of Employees (FTE s) Average Daily Enrollment - ADMr 3, , ,269.0 Weighted Enrollment Extended - 4, , ,986.8 ADMw Reynolds SD Assessed Value in Billions $5.170 $5.294 $5.631 Real Market Value in Billions $6.358 $6.380 $7.162 Operations $ $ $ Debt Service $ $ $ Total Property Tax Rate $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $29,142,082 $30,004,478 $30,946,214 Measure 5 Loss $-448,103 $-409,860 $-178,363 Number of Employees (FTE s) 1, , ,142.3 Average Daily Enrollment - ADMr 10, , ,254.0 Weighted Enrollment Extended - 14, , ,856.2 ADMw Gresham-Barlow SD 10J Assessed Value in Billions $5.402 $5.542 $5.799 Real Market Value in Billions $6.358 $6.446 $7.056 Operations $ $ $ Debt Service $ $ $ Total Property Tax Rate $ $ $ Total Taxes Imposed $30,123,883 $29,792,483 $31,730,422 Measure 5 Loss $-1,066,814 $-889,975 $-500,954 Number of Employees (FTE s) Average Daily Enrollment - ADMr 11, , ,187.8 Weighted Enrollment Extended - ADMw 13, , ,