Multnomah County

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

rt Po

d lan

ge w i lla vie V r le i d tda Fa am oo ou r W esh T Gr

Maywood Park

Multnomah County

TAX SUPERVISING AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION Current Commission Roster Elizabeth Hengeveld, Chair (503) 275-6987 [email protected] Lynn McNamara (503) 763-3890 [email protected]

Kirk R. Hall (503) ) 223-3321 [email protected]

Dr. Roslyn Elms Sutherland (503 243-2535 [email protected]

Carl Farrington (503) 227-7977 [email protected]

Staff Tom Linhares, Director Shannon Turk, Budget Analyst Tunie Betschart, Budget Technician

Multnomah County Local Governments Multnomah County local governments provide a variety of services to the citizens. The following 39 districts, located at least in part within the boundaries of Multnomah County, are under the jurisdiction of the Commission. Districts in bold have populations in excess of 200,000 and therefore have TSCC conduct their annual budget public hearings. Multnomah County Regional Districts 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 Cities City of Portland City of Fairview City of Gresham City of Maywood Park City of Troutdale City of Wood Village Community Colleges Mt. Hood Community College Portland Community College County Service Districts Dunthorpe-Riverdale SD

County Service Districts (cont.) Mid-County Service District 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

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: The TSCC is an independent, impartial panel of citizen volunteers established to monitor the financial affairs of local governments. Oregon Revised Statutes created the Commission in 1919, with the first Commission being organized in 1921. 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. The TSCC presently oversees the budgeting and taxing activities of thirty-nine 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). In total, these 39 entities employ 29,422 individuals (FTE) with annual budgets totaling nearly $9.287 billion. Five Commissioners, appointed by the Governor to four-year terms, direct the commission affairs. The Commissioners serve without compensation. Administrative employees, currently 2.6 positions (FTE), are appointed by the Commission. The Attorney General serves as the legal counsel. Operating expense is limited by statute to $280,000 annually and is allocated on a countywide basis through Multnomah County’s General Fund. The Commission annually serves the taxpayers by providing an extensive review of the budgets of the thirty-nine 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 must be certified 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 county entities and may be requested by the other taxing districts. The Commission holds additional public hearings throughout the year on supplemental budgets of the districts and on every new local option property tax and bond measure request placed before the voters. 2

Introduction The Commissioners and staff of the Multnomah County Tax Supervising and Conservation Commission (TSCC) are pleased to present this summary version of the 85th 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. A 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, www.co.multnomah.or.us/orgs/tscc. 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 39 municipal corporations in Multnomah County under the jurisdiction of TSCC for the 2007-08 fiscal year total $9,003,671,820*. This compares to $8,339,384,689 for the 2006-07 fiscal year, an increase of 7.97%. Much of the increase is due to increased capital outlay spending by several districts. Of the 39 districts, eight have lower budgets this year than last year. The largest budget is the City of Portland at $3.047 billion. The smallest is Alto Park Water District with a budget of $45,956. 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, therefore “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 39 budgets, the total amount for fiscal year 2007-08 comes to $7,434,373,354. The comparable number from the 2006-07 fiscal year was $6,830,097,394, an increase of 8.85%. 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 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 2007-08 the total combined General Fund budgets of the 39 districts is $3,265,681,636. This is 8.79% more than the General Fund totals from 2006-07 of $3,001,749,843. * Where districts have adopted a biennial (two year) budget, only fiscal year data is included 3

Combined Budget Totals (Continued) All three sets of numbers are shown below.

Combined Budget Totals 10 2006-07

8

2007-08

6 4 2 0 Com bined Totals Totals Less EFB & Transfers

General Fund Only

Combined Budget Revenues The total combined 2007-08 budgeted resources, net of transfers and beginning balances, for all 39 local governments within Multnomah County is $6.132 billion. This amount is 11.35% more than the $5.170 billion in revenue budgeted in 2006-07. The following chart shows the breakdown between the various sources of revenue that local governments depend on.

Combined Budget Resources by Type 2007-08 Fees & Charges $1,107,769,128

Utilities $390,208,061

Interest $111,608,700 Other $243,643,309

Debt Proceeds $712,189,539 Local $545,808,702

Property Tax $1,139,157,574

State $809,472,876 Federal $705,580,223 4

Other Tax $367,017,868

Combined Budget Revenues (Continued) Intergovernmental: Revenue from federal, state and local sources, at 34%, make up the largest source of revenue for local governments in Multnomah County. This category includes resources allocated from the Federal government and the State’s General Fund, as well as local grants and pass-through revenues such as distribution of county hotel/motel taxes to Metro ($9.4 million). Since the passage of Measure 5 in November 1990, state support for schools has become the number one source of intergovernmental revenue and of all revenue for education districts, totaling $488 million in 2007-08. The transfer of urban renewal backed debt proceeds from Gresham, Portland and Troutdale to their respective urban renewal agencies account for another $191.1 million in local, intergovernmental revenue. Fees & Charges and Utilities: Local government user, utility and franchise fees account for nearly one-fourth of all revenue this year. These fees include water, sewer, and stormwater charges, solid waste tipping charges, aircraft landing fees, bus/light rail fares, Oregon Zoo admissions, Oregon Convention Center admissions, school tuition and system development charges. The largest component, utility fees, continues to increase due to the debt service associated with cities’ improvements throughout the county. Property Taxes: While the implementation of two limitation measures since 1990 slowed the growth of property taxes this category remains a significant source of revenue for local governments, making up 18% of total revenue in 2007-08. This is especially true for general fund operations including fire, police, parks, and schools. Budgeted property taxes are also used for paying bonded indebtedness, which is not limited by Measure 5 or Measure 50. Property tax collections increased in 2007-08, due primarily to Portland Public School’s local option levy and Metro’s new bond measure. Debt Proceeds: Not all needs of local government can be paid for out of current revenue. Districts borrow money, mostly for capital projects, with repayment funded over a number of years. Debt proceeds are budgeted as revenue in the fiscal year in which it is received by the district. This accounts for 12% of revenue in 2007-08, a substantial increase over the 10% figure from 2006-07. The district with the largest amount of debt proceeds continues to be the City of Portland with over $500 million, mostly attributed to revenue bonds for water and sewer construction projects ($242.6 million) and urban renewal ($174.2 million). Other Taxes: The Other Taxes category includes a variety of items and makes up 6% of total revenue. The largest item, in terms of total revenue, is TriMet’s payroll tax, which represents TriMet’s primary source of operating revenue, budgeted at over $220 million in 2007-08. Also included in this category is Multnomah County’s business income tax ($52.2 million) and motor vehicle rental tax ($15.9 million), Metro’s excise tax ($17.7 million), and transient lodging taxes charged by the county and cities ($34.6 million).

5

Combined Budget Expenditures by Object In 2007-08 the total budgeted expenditures, net of transfers and ending fund balances, for the 39 local governments within Multnomah County totals $7.703 billion. As shown in the figure below, personal services and materials and services make up the largest categories of expenditures at 32% each. The percentage of expenditures allocated to capital outlay remained the same as last year. Debt service decreased from 9% of expenditures in 2006-07 to 8% this year. Contingencies increased from 11% to 13% in 2007-08.

Combined Budget Expenditures by Object 2007-08 Contingency $1,014,476,055

Personal Services $2,475,867,868

Debt Service $649,033,893

Capital Outlay $1,123,838,671

Materials & Services $2,439,607,734

Combined Budget Expenditures by Entity City governments, including urban renewal agencies, continue to be the highest spending type of district, with budgeted expenditures of $2.881 billion, followed by K-12 education districts and community colleges at $1.868 billion and Multnomah County at $1.103 billion.

Combined Budget Expenditures Cities $2,632,791,525 Urban Renew al Agencies $248,503,821

by Entity 2007-08

Fire Districts $2,391,419 TriMet $769,188,139 Port Metro $746,343,260 $323,064,657 6

Education Districts $1,201,356,437 Water, SWCD & Service Districts $9,368,364 Com m unity Colleges $667,135,685 Multnom ah County $1,102,680,914

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 to the measure. 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 determined. 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 30% of K-12 school district funding. Today it is closer to 70%. The state amount for 2007-08 includes school improvement funds (HB 5021-A).

State and Local School Funding Formula Revenue State of Oregon 5 State

$ Billions

4

Local

3

2

1

0 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 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 1990-91, 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

Staffing Levels The table below tracks the number of employees (FTE) over the past four years for each local government. Staffing levels have increased over the past year by 627.7 FTE. Expenditures for personal services, for all districts combined, increased $256.2 million in 2006-07. Only one district, Riverdale School District, decreased the number of employees between 2006-07 and 2007-08. Portland Community College added the most new FTE, 119, to serve a growing student population. Most other education districts also added positions. Reynolds School District increased the number of FTE by 103, more than 8.6% of its total. Five districts actually have fewer employees in 2007-08 than they did in 2004-05.

Total Number of Staff Positions (Full Time Equivalents) 2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

Change 06-07 to 07-08

Multnomah County

4,693.9

4,336.8

4,406.9

4,437.4

30.5

Regional Districts Metro Port TriMet East Multnomah SW CD W est Multnomah SW CD Subtotal Regional

654.5 770.9 2,423.0 3.3 0.9 3,852.6

660.6 770.9 2,482.0 5.0 1 3,919.5

677.4 776.5 2,528.0 7.5 1.2 3,990.6

719.3 792.4 2,590.0 11.3 2.7 4,115.7

41.9 15.9 62.0 3.8 119.8

Cities Portland Development Commission Gresham Redevelopment Commission UR Agency of City of Troutdale City of Portland City of Fairview City of Gresham City of Maywood Park City of Troutdale City of W ood Village Subtotal Cities

174.5 0.0 0.0 5,645.1 34.5 544.3 1.0 74.8 12.7 6,486.9

176.5 0.0 0.0 5,618.0 36.5 539.4 1.0 76.3 12.7 6,460.4

121.5 0.0 0.0 5,859.9 38.5 555.9 1.0 78.2 13.8 6,668.8

212.5 0 0 5907.8 39 564.4 1 82 14.8 6,821.5

91.0 0.0 0.0 47.9 0.5 8.5 0.0 3.8 1.0 152.7

Community Colleges Mt. Hood CC Portland CC Subtotal CC's

913.6 2,391.0 3,304.6

922.5 2,384.3 3,306.8

946.6 2,461.4 3,408.0

965.4 2,580.5 3,545.9

18.8 119.1 137.9

744.5 4,975.9 371.7 1,241.0 1,066.9 657.4 59.5 931.2 66.3 10,114.4

699.9 4,835.9 370.5 1,168.0 1,089.7 682.6 61.3 990.6 61.0 9,959.5

675.7 5,013.5 379.5 1,190.0 1,104.4 692.7 55.7 1,059.3 61.4 10,232.2

696.1 5083.9 399.1 1293 1120.8 713.3 58.5 1084.7 59.7 10,509.1

20.4 70.4 19.6 103.0 16.4 20.6 2.8 25.4 -1.7 276.9

7.4

6.7

-0.6

28,713.9

29,436.3

717.2

Entity

K-12 Education Education Service District Portland SD 1J Parkrose SD 3 Reynolds SD 7 Gresham Barlow SD 10J Centennial SD 28J Corbett SD 39 David Douglas SD 40 Riverdale SD 51J Subtotal K-12 Various Other Total

7.10 28,459.5

8

7.40 27,990.4

Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) State agencies and many municipal corporations such as counties, cities, school districts and special districts provide retirement benefits to their employees through Oregon’s Public Employee Retirement System (PERS). In Multnomah County, 25 of the 37 districts participate. The PERS system is a combination of a defined benefit and a defined contribution retirement plan and is comprised of two components: the “employee portion” and the “employer portion”. Generally, the employee portion is a defined contribution plan and the employer portion is a defined benefit plan. Employees hired after August 29, 2003 are technically not members of PERS. The Legislature created a new plan 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, 2005 and July 1, 2007. July 1, 2005 OPSRP rates were the same for all jurisdictions in the state, 8.04%. Generally higher rates for police and firefighters are not shown.

P E R S E m p lo yer R ates

S ystem -W id e A verag e

T ier 1 / 2 Ju ly 1, 2005

T ier 1 / 2 Ju ly 1, 2007

O PSRP Ju ly 1, 2007

15.40

14.80

16.30

G en eral G o vern m en t D istricts M ultnom ah C ounty/S ervice D istricts* M etro* P ort of P ortland * C ity of P ortland/P D C * C ity of F airview C ity of G resham * C ity of T routdale C ity of W ood V illage C orbett R F P D N o. 14 C orbett W ater

11.18 7.76 8.39 8.07 14.04 11.38 17.19 11.06 12.55 19.57

9.85 5.17 6.05 6.66 11.04 7.55 8.15 9 9.34 N .A

10.65 7.63 7.31 9.21 11.40 5.85 8.52 11.59 13.22 33.64

E d u c a tio n D is tric ts M t. H ood C om m unity C ollege * P ortland C om m unity C ollege * E ducation S ervice D istrict * P ortland S D 1J * P arkrose S D 3 R eynolds S D 7 * G resham /B arlow S D 10J* C entennial S D 28J C orbett S D 39 ** D avid D ouglas S D 40 R iverdale S D 51J

0.98 3.02 7.56 0.59 16.97 1.88 5.73 16.97 16.97 16.97 3.29

0.37 0.37 8.01 0.37 17.64 3.08 5.99 17.64 17.64 17.64 4.00

2.13 2.56 10.28 0.26 19.91 5.35 8.26 19.91 19.91 19.91 6.29

* R ates hav e been reduced due to lum p s um paym ent to P E R S from s ale of bonds to c over all or a portion of U A L N ote: N ot show n are the rates for Portland, F airview , G res ham , T routdale and W ood Village to c ov er a $79 m illion liability for form er em ploy ees of F ire D is tric t 10

9

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 (both K through 12th grade school districts and community colleges), urban development, and social services. For the 2007-08 fiscal year, a total of $1,092,393,479 has been imposed in ad valorem property taxes. An additional $8,246,618 in “special taxes”, such as late filing penalties, disqualification back taxes from farm and forest assessment, drainage district fees and Oregon Department of Forestry per acre assessments has been imposed. This total amount of $1,100,640,097 compares to the total amount of taxes imposed in 2006-07 of $986,852,495, an 11.5 percent increase. Fire districts, SWCD’s and the two County Service Districts are extremely reliant on property taxes. The more enterprise oriented organizations, such as water districts, the Port of Portland and TriMet are not heavily dependent on property taxes. TriMet only levies property taxes for debt service. All of Metro’s property tax revenue is dedicated to the Oregon Zoo. Six districts - both SWCD’s, the City of Maywood Park, Multnomah Fire District # 10, Palatine Hill Water District, and Valley View Water District - levy less than their full authority. Pleasant Home Water District has no taxing authority. 10

Taxable Property All property is subject to property taxation unless otherwise exempted by state law. Generally, personal property used by individuals, public property, 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. The majority of assessed value in Multnomah County is residential. Residential 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 $54.303 billion in 2007-08, a 5.6% increase over the assessed value in 2006-07.

Assessed Value by Type Multnomah County 2007 Commercial $10,519,930,340 Personal $2,486,156,119 Industrial $2,578,209,850

Residential $33,083,325,901

Multiple Housing $2,711,574,730 Utilities $2,524,524,332

11

Other $399,588,460

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. The differences are primarily that residential and commercial property’s percentage of total real market value is greater than the percentage of assessed value. This is due to the fact that this type of property appreciates in value more than other types of property. Typically there is a nearly a 50% or more difference between real market value and assessed value for residential and commercial property (although the ratio can vary widely from property to property). The result is that these two types of property make-up a larger percentage of market value than of assessed value. Total real market value in 2007-08 is $100.303 billion which is 15.3% more than the real market value in 2006-07 of $87.014 billion.

Real Market Value by Type Multnomah County 2007-08 Commercial $22,587,729,110 Personal $2,488,853,857

Residential $64,360,768,812

Industrial $2,825,742,250 Multiple Housing $4,807,342,150 Utilities $2,613,611,777

Other $618,715,310

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 45% of all real market value in the county. This takes into account both exemptions and the value limitations of Measure 50. A total of over $20 billion has been exempted in 2007-08. 12

Value Growth The value of residential and commercial property continues to grow faster than industrial and utility property as shown in the following graph. Since 1998-99, residential value, as a percent of total assessed value, has increased from 54% to 61% while industrial and utility value has decreased from 12.8% to 9.5%.

Residential Assessed Value vs. Other Values Multnomah County 40 30

2006-07

20

2007-08

10 0 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 assessed value, net of urban renewal excess value, grew by 5.06% countywide, there was variation throughout the county. As shown in the graph below, the highest growth area in 2007-08 was inside the City of Wood Village at 8.5%. The slowest growing areas were within the City of Maywood Park (3.2%) and the City of Gresham at 4.3%. The assessed value used here is net of urban renewal excess value which is not available to taxing districts. Including excess value, the assessed value inside the City of Portland increased 5.7% in 2007-08. Portland accounts for 81% of the total assessed value in Multnomah County.

Changes in Assessed Value Growth for Cities within Multnomah County 10% 2006-07

8%

2007-08

6% 4% 2% 0% Gresham

Fairview

Mayw ood Troutdale Park 13

Portland

Wood Village

Property Tax Rates Property owners are taxed on the combined rates of general government, education and debt service for all overlapping governments that provide services to that 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. The rate is calculated by dividing the dollar levy by the total assessed value of the district. Rates for these levies decrease as the assessed value increases. Since different districts operate in different parts of the county, the rates and total tax burden of a property depends on where the property is located. As shown in the graph below, total tax rates vary considerably. Within Portland, the combined rate for 2007-08 is $21.77 per $1,000 of assessed value, up from the 2006-07 rate of $20.14. Meanwhile, the total tax rate for properties on Sauvie Island, outside of any incorporated city, is $12.77.

Tax Rates for 2007-08

25

Educatio n

by Category and Tax Code Area Multnomah County Per $1,000 AV 2 1.8

17 .2

20 15

General Go vernment Debt Service

17 .3 8 16 .3

16 .5

16 .3

16 .0

10 5 0 Po r t land

Gr esham

M ayw o o d Par k

T r o ut d al e

C o r b et t

F air view

Wood V il lag e

Code 0 0 1 Code 0 2 6

Code 3 3 1

Code 2 4 2

C o d e 3 58

Code 2 4 0

Code 2 4 1

Total Property Taxes Imposed The following graph shows the total amount of property taxes imposed by governments in Multnomah County in 2007-08. A total of $1,100,640,097, $113.8 million or 11.5% more than 2006-07, is to be collected.

Total Property Taxes Imposed within Multnomah County $ Millions 1,200 927.8

1,000 740.5

800 600

572.5

558.5

653.8

800.3

851.4

964.0

932.0 987.0

1,100.6

875.4

653.1 714.9

400 200 0 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08

14

Types of Property Taxes The table below reflects the changes in the types of ad valorem taxes imposed. Overall there was an 11.4% increase in taxes imposed from 200607 to 2007-08. This compares to a 6% increase a year ago. However, there is a considerable difference in the percentage increase in the different type of taxes. Taxes under the permanent rate category increased 6%, in part due to City of Portland’s FPD&R levy increase. Local option levies increased 83%. Portland Public Schools received voter approval for a $1.2500 Local Option Levy and the County’s Library Local Option Levy was increased. Bonded debt levies increased 9%, primarily a result of Metro’s new Natural Spaces bond measure. Urban renewal taxes imposed increased 16.5%. Urban renewal revenue comes from the increase in value over the frozen base; this value increased by more than 13% over last year.

Type of Property Taxes, 2006-07 and 2007-08 within Multnomah County Permanent Rate Type of District

Local Option

& Gap Levies 06-07 07-08

06-07

07-08

06-07

Change

County

204.9 215.3

5%

31.1

39.3

27%

Cities

283.3 302.2

7%

24.9

26.9

8%

Schools

278.9 293.5

5%

0.5

20%

0.4

12.5

15.1

Million $

Change

37.4 7399% 0.4

8%

07-08

Million $ 9.5

9.3

06-07 Change

779.6 826.1

6%

56.9

104.1

83%

07-08

Million $

-2%

245.5

264.0

Change 7.6%

9.9

9.0

-9%

318.0

338.1

6.3%

36.2

35.6

-2%

315.6

366.5

16.1%

13.4

21.13

58%

26.3

36.6

39.2%

74.8

87.2

16.5%

980.2

1,092.4

Urban Renewal Total Taxes

Total Imposed

Million $

Special Districts

Bond Levies

Levies

69.0

75.0

9%

11.4%

Measure 5 Reductions With the establishment of lower tax rates under Measure 50, the amount of taxes “compressed” to keep taxes within the Measure 5 limitations has been reduced significantly. This is especially true for education districts. Using the real market value to test the limits has also contributed to less Measure 5 compression losses. The implementation of Measure 50 cut Measure 5 reductions for education districts from nearly $376 million in 1997-98 without Measure 50 to $5 million in 1998-99. Compression loss from education districts increased in 2007-08, from $3.8 million in 2006-07 to $9.5 million. Portland Public Schools’ new $1.2500 Local Option Levy accounted for nearly $6 million of the increase. General governments went from almost no Measure 5 reductions in 1996-97 to $28 million this year. The 2002-03 loss increased by $6.1 million primarily due to a court case dealing with how urban renewal taxes are to be treated under Measure 5. The increased from $26.5 million in 2006-07 to $28 million this year, is due to increases in several levies: County’s Library Local Option Levy, City of Portland’s FPD&R Levy and East Multnomah SWCD Permanent Rate Levy. West Multnomah SWCD levied a tax for the first time. The general government tax rate inside the City of Portland went from $13.7887 to $14.1958 per $1,000 of assessed value, well above the $10 limit. 15

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 three urban renewal agencies in Multnomah County: Gresham Redevelopment Commission, Portland Development Commission and the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Troutdale. In addition, since the City of Lake Oswego’s boundary crosses in to 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.

Excess Value Unused Changes in the property tax system brought about by Measure 50 substantially changed the way urban renewal calculations are made. Legislation to implement Measure 50 required urban renewal agencies to decide how to collect urban renewal revenues. One of the options, Option 3, allowed agencies to limit the amount of revenue from the excess value. Agencies were required to formally adopt an ordinance establishing the maximum amount they would annually collect from division of tax calculations. Excess value not used to collect the maximum TIF revenue is added back to the assessed value of all of the taxing districts, increasing revenues to those districts. For 2007-08, PDC did not use $2.207 billion in excess value resulting in approximately $39.9 million in additional property tax revenue for schools, the county, regional districts, and Portland. Since 1998-99, nearly $15 billion in excess value has been returned to taxing districts, as shown in the graph below.

PDC Excess Value Used & Unused 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Excess Value Not Used Excess Value Used

98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08

16

Tax Distribution Every dollar that is collected in taxes is proportionately distributed to all the entities in Multnomah County that receive tax dollars. This allows districts to budget knowing they will receive approximately 94.5% of the amount that is due to them rather than being dependent on how the individual taxpayers in the districts pay their respective taxes.

Property Tax Distribution by Entity Multnomah County 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15%

3 3 .4 %

2006-07 2 4 . 1%

3 0 .8 %

2007-08

7.9 %

10% 5% 0%

2 .9 % 0 .8 %

County

Regional

Urban Renew al

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 15th, February 15th and May 15th. 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 have been increasing slightly over the last several years. After netting out discounts, slightly more than 2.7% of the total current year taxes imposed were delinquent as of June 30, 2007. This compares with 3.66% uncollected as of June 30, 2001. The collection rate history closely follows changes in the economy and the property tax system. Recessions in 1973-75, 1980-82 and 2000-01 reduced collection rates. An increase in delinquent interest rate charges to 16% annually starting in 1989 increased the collection rate.

17

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, 2007 in Multnomah County are shown in the following chart. At the end of fiscal year 2006-07, outstanding debt totaled $5.528 billion - up from $5.000 billion on June 30, 2006 .

Outstanding Long Term Debt by Type as of June 30, 2007 within Multnomah County PERS Bonds $1,397,015,824

Revenue Bonds $2,462,466,144

Lim ited Tax Bonds / Full Faith & Credit $443,476,138 Urban Renew al Tax Increm ent Bonds $271,730,000

Other $152,619,148

General Obligation Bonds $800,443,676

The graph below reflects the outstanding debt by the various entities.

Outstanding Long Term Debt as of June 30, 2007 $ Million $3,000

2.429 $2,500

$2,000

$1,500

1.239

$1,000

0.632 0.485

0.338

$500

0.311 0.71

0.24

Cit y of

All Ot hers

$0 Cit y of

Educat ion

Port of

Port land

( Combined)

Port land

TriMet

Mult nomah Count y

18

Met ro

Gresham

Debt Summary

Amount of Original Issue

Amount Outstanding 6/30/2007

Principal & Interest 2007-08

Debt Summary By Bond Type General Obligation Bonds

1,343,586,222

800,443,676

113,381,582

Urban Renewal Tax Increment Bonds

368,230,000

271,730,000

28,006,057

Improvement Bonds/Bancroft Bonds

80,320,000

55,250,000

5,605,732

604,883,200

443,476,138

45,715,589

PERS Bonds

1,442,582,452

1,397,015,824

91,027,398

Revenue Bonds - Public

2,913,860,966

2,428,051,144

210,940,474

Lease Purchase (COPs & Other)

159,401,869

42,873,522

12,862,302

Long Term Loans (State & Other)

68,345,930

54,495,626

6,387,369

Industrial Revenue Bonds - Private

50,670,000

34,415,000

0

7,031,880,639

5,527,750,930

513,926,503

Multnomah County

582,404,088

337,664,176

36,478,740

Metro

413,996,683

310,679,830

41,603,473

Port of Portland

890,322,177

632,304,802

58,635,723

TriMet

543,199,197

485,151,896

41,935,233

Portland Development Commission

4,645,000

2,563,005

565,052

Limited Tax Obligation Bonds/Full Faith & Credit Obligations

GRAND TOTAL

Debt Summary By Local Units

Cities

2,942,281,498

2,516,900,755

226,937,502

Education Districts

1,651,119,246

1,239,223,822

107,523,403

300,000

175,000

25,675

3,612,750

3,087,644

221,703

7,031,880,639

5,527,750,930

513,926,503

Fire Districts Water Districts GRAND TOTAL

19

SUMMARY of BUDGET TOTALS Multnomah County Actual 2004-05 Multnomah County

Actual 2005-06

Budget 2006-07

Budget 2007-08

1,212,568,629

1,224,958,704

1,140,252,417

1,205,148,662

289,872,134 718,111,652 511,043,204 183,075 153,540

332,583,185 755,993,155 506,043,204 1,716,545 151,036

316,879,036 748,638,023 687,108,155 2,409,866 225,015

471,392,687 951,560,226 842,200,935 5,154,115 754,655

1,519,363,605

1,596,487,125

1,755,260,095

2,271,062,618

228,033,164 1,284,349 0

250,125,734 12,306,335 0

270,104,888 7,606,609 0

316,068,287 6,722,225 3,897,502

2,732,094,003 18,540,016 260,963,447 577,022 24,952,925 6,628,833

2,872,488,535 18,166,238 289,319,391 542,569 28,430,062 7,597,313

3,054,642,290 19,870,870 301,404,686 494,163 34,304,628 10,723,403

3,046,938,195 21,902,308 297,862,775 502,567 38,820,925 12,844,628

3,273,073,759

3,478,976,177

3,699,151,537

3,745,559,412

110,639,954 424,267,068

108,839,736 313,083,282

131,461,495 310,739,835

137,254,191 624,144,147

534,907,022

421,923,018

442,201,330

761,398,338

80,324,835 597,064,496 47,551,186 159,265,508 123,705,547 69,439,222 6,854,405 145,632,456 8,298,332

91,477,001 558,507,485 51,900,036 143,643,016 134,681,969 80,673,883 8,089,249 188,412,269 9,117,591

78,327,298 556,419,428 54,455,136 205,774,700 132,672,034 93,155,661 7,671,073 153,864,000 9,186,310

99,279,117 590,748,173 59,541,862 142,882,850 138,073,278 91,730,408 8,014,668 152,800,000 9,502,600

Sub-Total K-12 School Districts

1,238,135,987

1,266,502,499

1,291,525,640

1,292,572,956

Rural Fire Protection Districts: Multnomah Fire 10 Riverdale Fire 11J (Biennial Budget) Multnomah Fire 14 Sauvie Island

2,086,028 1,999,403 825,639 177,181

1,919,728 0 824,436 445,381

1,698,696 2,152,200 914,398 293,473

1,919,938 0 918,960 365,557

5,088,251

3,189,545

5,058,767

3,204,455

32,235 391,266 1,856,501 373,586 1,237,372 242,823 642,064

38,178 419,691 2,095,309 387,033 1,072,320 303,676 732,706

36,990 399,900 1,994,940 332,900 1,241,568 320,900 1,086,080

45,956 555,921 1,637,292 387,250 1,531,147 403,300 1,921,103

4,775,847

5,048,913

5,413,278

6,481,969

784,540 731,182

814,224 645,948

968,000 629,725

771,000 662,500

1,515,722

1,460,172

1,597,725

1,433,500

7,789,428,822

7,998,546,153

8,340,460,789

9,286,861,910

Regional Districts: Metro Port of Portland TriMet Transportation District East Multnomah Soil & Water Conservation West Multnomah Soil & Water Conservation Sub-Total Regional Districts Portland Development Commission Gresham Redevelopment Commission Urban Renewal Agency City of Troutdale Cities: Portland Fairview Gresham Maywood Park Troutdale Wood Village Sub-Totals UR Agencies and Cities Community Colleges: Mt. Hood Community College Portland Community College (Biennial Budget) Sub-Total Community Colleges K-12 School Districts: Multnomah Education Service District Portland Parkrose Reynolds Gresham-Barlow Centennial Corbett David Douglas Riverdale

Sub-Total Rural Fire Districts Water Districts: Alto Park Burlington Corbett Lusted Palatine Hill Pleasant Home Valley View Sub-Total Water Districts County Service Districts: Dunthorpe-Riverdale Sewer Mid-County Street Lighting Sub-Total County Service Districts GRAND TOTAL OF BUDGETS

20

Multnomah County Assessed Value in Billions Real Market Value in Billions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Library Local Option Debt Service Total Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Metro Assessed Value in Billions Real Market Value in Billions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Debt Service Total Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Convention Center Activity: Number Convention/Trade Shows Attendance Zoo Attendance Metro Facilities Solid Waste Tonnage Port of Portland Assessed Value in Billions Real Market Value in Billions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) PDX Passenger Volume in Millions Air Cargo in Tons Marine Container Boxes Automobiles TriMet Assessed Value in Billions Real Market Value in Billions Property Tax Rate Extended: Debt Service Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Ridership: Bus Boardings LIFT Boardings Light Rail Boardings Total Boardings Average Weekday Ridership

2005-06 $49.186 $78.098 $236,446,292 $4.3434 $0.7550 $0.2081 $5.3065 $236,446,292 $-11,297,437 4,337

2006-07 $51.433 $87.058 $246,743,688 $4.3434 $0.7550 $0.1965 $5.2949 $246,743,688 $-10,220,015 4,407

2007-08 $54.303 $100.303 $265,717,805 $4.3434 $0.8900 $0.1837 $5.4171 $265,717,805 $-10,885,686 4,437

2005-06 $105.102 $156.692

2006-07 $110.333 $181.787

2007-08 $116.531 $207.456

$0.0966 $0.1875 $0.2841 $28,564,715 $-111,374 660.6

$0.0966 $0.1816 $0.2782 $29,357,370 $-103,617 677.4

$0.0966 $0.3326 $0.4292 $48,123,417 $-106,945 719.3

90 633,575 1,365,459 572,886

90 700,000 1,330,000 624,403

85 630,000 1,400,000 587,000

2005-06 $115.871 $171.735

2006-07 $121.764 $199.557

2007-08 $128.656 $228.372

$0.0701 $7,746,142 $-80,829 770.9 14.0 271,317 88,700 376,000

$0.0701 $8,144,333 $-75,265 776.5 14.1 291,500 140,000 438,000

$0.0701 $8,605,334 $-77,586 792.4 14.2 300,800 149,500 460,000

2005-06 $104.384 $155.761

2006-07 $109.542 $180.771

2007-08 $115.615 $206.243

$0.1191 $11,966,721 N/A 2,482

$0.0973 $10,259,492 N/A 2,528

$0.0856 $9,525, 663 N/A 2,590

63,129,600 1,046,679 32,606,400 96,392,889 310,770

62,882,400 1,084,054 34,035,600 98,002,054 313,577

62,253,576 1,127,416 35,397,024 98,775,016 315,835

21

East Multnomah Soil & Water CD Assessed Value in Millions Real Market Value in Millions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) West Multnomah Soil & Water CD Assessed Value in Millions Real Market Value in Millions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) PDC Base Frozen Value in Billions Excess Value Used in Billions Excess Value Not Used in Billions Total Value of Plan Areas in Billions Number of Plan Areas Special Levy Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Gresham Redevelopment Comm. Base Frozen Value in Millions Increased Value in Millions Total Value All Plan Areas in Millions Number of Plan Areas Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Urban Renewal Agency City of Troutdale Base Frozen Value in Millions Increased Value in Millions Total Value All Plan Areas in Millions Number of Plan Areas Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss City of Portland Assessed Value in Billions Real Market Value in Billions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Fire Police Disability & Retirement Parks Local Option Children’s Initiative Local Option Debt Service Total Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s)

2005-06 $34.154 $54.603

2006-07 $35.696 $61.081

2007-08 $37.519 $70.019

$0.0413 $1,336,432 $-31,301 5.0

$0.0326 $1,101,807 $-23,266 7.5

$0.0715 $2,526,880 $-53,838 11.3

2005-06 N.A N.A.

2006-07 N.A. N.A.

2007-08 $16.791 $30.295

N.A. N.A. N.A. 1.1

N.A. N.A. N.A. 1.2

$0.0378 $552,410 $-13,260 2.7

2005-06 $4.065 $2.779 $1.705 $8.550 11 $0.3754 $65,922,216 $-2,850,517 176.5

2006-07 $4.065 $3.128 $1.838 $8.959 11 $0.3588 $73,776,936 $-2,808,102 212.5

2007-08 $4.065 $3.532 $2.207 $9.699 11 $0.3394 $85,875,157 $-3,625,588 212.5

2005-06 $437.5 $57.1 $494.6 1 $900,537 $-48 2005-06 N/A N/A N/A N;/A N/A N/A

2006-07 $437.5 $79.1 $516.7 1 $1,240,316 $-62 2006-07 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

2007-08 $437.5 $97.0 $534.5 1 $1,500,486 $-74 2007-08 $19.2 $1.4 20.6 1 $22,970 $-0

2005-06 39.957 $65.309

2006-07 $41.802 $72.904

2007-08 $44.195 $84.291

$4.5770 $2.3293 $0.3900 $0.4026 $0.2192 $7.9181 $280,976,486 $-14,542,391 5,618.0

$4.5770 $2.2379 $0.3900 $0.4026 $0.2053 $7.8128 $289,706,711 $-13,133,890 5,859.9

$4.5770 $2.3453 $0.3900 $0.4026 $0.1875 $7.9024 $309,258,103 $-13,048,060 5,907.8

22

City of Fairview Assessed Value in Millions Real Market Value in Millions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) City of Gresham Assessed Value in Billions Real Market Value in Billions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Debt Service Total Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) City of Maywood Park Assessed Value in Millions Real Market Value in Millions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) City of Troutdale Assessed Value in Billions Real Market Value in Billions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Debt Service Total Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s)

2005-06 $441.4 $638.6

2006-07 $466.0 $718.9

2007-08 $502.2 $833.8

$3.4902 $1,541,500 $-294 36.5

$3.4902 $1,626,746 $-156 38.5

$3.4902 $1,792,463 $-145 39.0

2005-06 $5.648 $7.714

2006-07 $5.887 $8.496

2007-08 $6.155 $9.529

$3.6129 $0.1879 $3.8008 $21,297,822 $-559 539.4

$3.6129 $0.1850 $3.7979 $22,153,282 $-548 555.9

$3.6129 $0.0816 $3.6945 $22,486,556 $-565 564.4

2005-06 $45.8 $68.8

2006-07 $47.3 $76.5

2007-08 $48.9 $89.1

$0.2448 $11,207 $0 1

$0.4563 $21,596 $-1 1

$0.6502 $31,766 $-1 1

2005-06 $0.871 $1.202

2006-07 $0.933 $1.375

2007-08 $1.001 $1.620

$3.7652 $0.7814 $4.5466 $4,002,040 $-137 76.3

$3.7652 $0.6939 $4.4591 $4,176,991 $-108 78.2

$3.7652 $0.6630 $4.4272 $4,479,563 $-73 82.0

23

Mt. Hood Community College Assessed Value in Billions Real Market Value in Billions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Enrollment: Headcount Full Time Equivalents Tuition Per Credit Hour Portland Community College Assessed Value in Billions Real Market Value in Billions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Debt Service Total Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Enrollment: Headcount Full Time Equivalents Tuition per credit hour Multnomah ESD Assessed Value in Billions Real Market Value in Billions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Enrollment: County-Wide Extended-ADMw*

2005-06 $17.688 $24.735

2006-07 $18.584 $27.846

2007-08 $19.519 $31.944

$0.4917 $8,394,479 $-110,447 922.5

$0.4917 $8,793,283 $-110,769 946.6

$0.4917 $9,232,805 $-108,454 965.4

25,721 8,385 $63

25,758 8,308 $66

25,758 8,308 $66

2005-06 $81.330 $123.144

2006-07 $85.274 $143.777

2007-08 $89.902 $163.622

$0.2828 $0.2122 $0.4950 $36,588,202 $-123,733 2,384.3

$0.2828 $0.2061 $0.4889 $39,821,292 $-211,455 2,461.4

$0.2828 $0.2223 $0.5051 $43,395,128 $-198,415 2,580.5

83,255 22,808 $64

91,000 23,300 $67

91,000 23,600 $68

2005-06 $49.976 $79.234

2006-07 $52.260 $88.572

2007-08 $55.167 $102.055

$0.4576 $21,520,950 $-137,191 699.9

$0.4576 $22,221,237 $-290,406 675.7

$0.4576 $23,397,553 $-272,247 696.1

108,679.7

108,038.8

107,542.1

2005-06 $33.896 $56.771

2006-07 $35.389 $63.356

2007-08 $37.478 $73.401

$4.7743 $ 0 $4.7743 $149,858,312 $-415,195 4,835.9 43,410.4 54,462.9

$5.2781 $ 0 $5.2781 $169,882,690 $-2,203,988 5,013.5 42,926.3 53,435.8

$5.2781 $1.2500 $6.5281 $216,644,507 $-7,975,676 5,083.9 42,470.0 52,751.2

*Latest May estimates from ODE web site

Portland Public SD 1J Assessed Value in Billions Real Market Value in Billions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Local Option for Operations Total Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Average Daily Enrollment - ADMr Weighted Enrollment Extended - ADMw

24

Parkrose SD 3 Assessed Value in Billions Real Market Value in Billions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Debt Service Total Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Average Daily Enrollment - ADMr Weighted Enrollment Extended - ADMw Reynolds SD 7 Assessed Value in Billions Real Market Value in Billions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Debt Service Total Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Average Daily Enrollment - ADMr Weighted Enrollment Extended - ADMw Gresham-Barlow SD 10J Assessed Value in Billions Real Market Value in Billions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Debt Service Total Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Average Daily Enrollment - ADMr Weighted Enrollment Extended - ADMw Centennial SD 28J Assessed Value in Billions Real Market Value in Billions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Debt Service Total Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Average Daily Enrollment - ADMr Weighted Enrollment Extended - ADMw

2005-06 $2.581 $3.469

2006-07 $2.749 $3.770

2007-08 $2.859 $4.239

$4.8906 $1.4386 $6.3292 $15,304,267 $-541,112 370.5 3,379.7 4,231.9

$4.8906 $1.3729 $6.2635 $16,154,032 $-598,161 379.5 3,385.6 4,247.3

$4.8906 $1.0341 $5.9247 $15,901,796 $-588,118 399.1 3,380.0 4,260.5

2005-06 $4.129 $5.682

2006-07 $4.355 $6.314

2007-08 $4.597 $7.195

$4.4626 $1.5525 $6.0151 $24,295,072 $-191,206 1,168.0 10,487.2 13,778.6

$4.4626 $1.4871 $5.9497 $25,174,414 $-179,394 1,190.0 10,662.2 14,136.7

$4.4626 $1.3713 $5.8339 $26,159,265 $-168,472 1,293.0 10,890.0 14,479.5

2005-06 $4.327 $6.021

2006-07 $4.478 $6.689

2007-08 $4.678 $7.624

$4.5268 $3.3809 $7.9077 $27,893,858 $-195,056 1,089.7 11,659.1 13,964.2

$4.5268 $3.5634 $8.0902 $27,916,961 $-176,630 1,104.4 11,558.3 13,964.2

$4.5268 $3.2918 $7.8186 $30,150,762 $-189,544 1,120.8 11,680.0 13,988.9

2005-06 $1.814 $2.587

2006-07 $1.904 $2.988

2007-08 $1.996 $3.379

$4.7448 $2.1941 $6.9389 $12,555,379 $-44,054 682.6 6,291.8 7,858.3

$4.7448 $2.2173 $7.3410 $13,216,457 $-40,497 692.7 6325.3 7,930.3

$4.7448 $1.9007 $6.6455 $12,931,939 $-38,817 713.3 6,481.0 8,094.7

25

Corbett SD 39 Assessed Value in Millions Real Market Value in Millions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Debt Service Total Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Average Daily Enrollment – ADMr Weighted Enrollment Extended - ADMw David Douglas SD 40 Assessed Value in Billions Real Market Value in Billions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Debt Service Total Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Average Daily Enrollment - ADMr Weighted Enrollment Extended - ADMw Riverdale SD 51J Assessed Value in Millions Real Market Value in Millions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Local Option for Operations Debt Service Total Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Average Daily Enrollment - ADMr Weighted Enrollment Extended - ADMw

2005-06 $265.1 $362.2

2006-07 $275.1 $394.5

2007-08 $288.3 $441.5

$4.5941 $5.0149 $9.6090 $2,062,728 $-10,158 61.3 603.1 746.8

$4.5941 $3.7453 $8.3394 $1,916,896 $-9,302 55.7 610.8 755.2

$4.5941 $4.6045 $9.1986 $2,177,334 $-10,277 58.5 640.0 779.4

2005-06 $2.522 $3.744

2006-07 $2. 643 $4.266

2007-08 $2.775 $4.916

$4.6394 $1.9101 $6.5495 $15,548,123 $-39,591 990.6 9,566.9 12,388.2

$4.6394 $2.1941 $6.8335 $16,785,596 $-32,960 1,059.3 9,699.7 12,464.7

$4.6394 $2.2196 $6.8590 $17,513,512 $-24,831 1,084.7 9,622.0 12,463.7

2005-06 $449.5 $700.0

2006-07 $473.0 $800.0

2007-08 $496.2 $859.0

$3.8149 $0.6550 $2.1783 $6.6482 $2,986,250 $-2,590 61.0 474.4 607.9

$3.8149 $1.0700 $2.0265 $6.9114 $3,286,729 $-6,570 61.4 429.4 607.9

$3.8149 $1.0700 $1.5389 $6.4238 $3,181,045 $-6,270 59.7 442.0 585.0

26

Multnomah RFPD 10 Assessed Value in Millions Real Market Value in Millions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Riverdale RFPD 11J Assessed Value in Millions Real Market Value in Millions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Local Option for Operations Total Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Multnomah RFPD 14 Assessed Value in Millions Real Market Value in Millions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Sauvie Island RFPD 30J Assessed Value in Millions Real Market Value in Millions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Local Option for Operations Debt Service Total Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) Alto Park Water Assessed Value in Millions Real Market Value in Millions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Local Option Total Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Burlington Water Assessed Value in Millions Real Market Value in Millions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Total Taxes Imposed Number of Employees (FTE’s)

2005-06 $440.0 $606.6

2006-07 $443.9 $686.9

2007-08 $457.2 $763.2

$2.8527 $1,260,290 $-7 .15

$2.8527 $1,268,510 $-6 .15

$2.7500 $1,265,552 $-5 .15

2005-06 $492.1 $768.1

2006-07 $517.4 $882.8

2007-08 $538.6 $954.8

$1.2361 $0.4300 $1.6661 $819,478 $-461

$1.2361 $0.3500 $1.5861 $825,663 $-438

$1.2361 $0.3500 $1.5861 $853,598 $-653

2005-06 $252.1 $348.2

2006-07 $261.9 $381.7

2007-08 $275.2 $427.3

$1.2624 $320,316 $-17 0.5

$1.2624 $330,868 $-15 0.5

$1.2624 $349,215 $-12 0.5

2005-06 $120.9 $153.7

2006-07 $124.5 $162.6

2007-08 $129.8 $209.0

$0.7894 $0.5510 $0.2282 $1.5686 $190,031 $-5

$0.7894 $0.4600 $0.2235 $1.4729 $183,316 $-1 0.5

$0.7894 $0.4600 $0.1961 $1.4455 $188,386 $0 0.5

2005-06 $17.4 $29.6

2006-07 $18.3 $33.3

2007-08 $19.3 $37.2

$1.5985 $0.2500 $1.8485 $32,243

$1.5985 $0.2500 $1.8485 $33,801

$1.5985 $0.2500 $1.8485 $35,627

2005-06 $25.8 $38.9

2006-07 $26.9 $40.5

2007-08 $28.5 $44.2

$3.4269 $89,884 0.25

$3.4269 $92,209 0.25

$3.4269 $97,518 0.25

0.5

27

Corbett Water Assessed Value in Millions Real Market Value in Millions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Total Taxes Imposed Number of Employees (FTE’s) Lusted Water Assessed Value in Millions Real Market Value in Millions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Total Taxes Imposed Number of Employees (FTE’s) Palatine Hill Water Assessed Value in Millions Real Market Value in Millions Pleasant Home Water Assessed Value in Millions Real Market Value in Millions Number of Employees (FTE’s) Valley View Water Assessed Value in Millions Real Market Value in Millions Property Tax Rate Extended: Operations Total Taxes Imposed Dunthorpe-Riverdale Service Assessments per Month Connections Total Taxes Imposed Mid-County Service Assessments per Year Connections Total Taxes Imposed

28

2005-06 $201.1 $278.3

2006-07 $209.2 $304.3

2007-08 $219.5 $337.8

$0.5781 $116,402 4.1

$0.5781 $121,043 3.1

$0.5781 $127,710 3.9

2005-06 $86.5 $118.5

2006-07 $89.5 $131.6

2007-08 $92.7 $147.6

$0.2423 $21,163 0.4

$0.2423 $21,683 0.4

$0.2423 $22,567 0.4

2005-06 $392.7 $618.3

2006-07 $414.3 $713.5

2007-08 $430.5 $766.3

2005-06 $96.3 $132.4 1.5

2006-07 $101.5 $149.3 1.0

2007-08 $106.6 $168.3 1.0

2005-06 $137.7 $195.4

2006-07 $144.3 $225.3

2007-08 $150.7 $247.9

$0.4778 $65,805 2005-06 $67 585 $463,965

$0.4448 $64,192 2006-07 $80 591 $560,039

$0.8478 $127,730 2007-08 $90 594 $629,153

2005-06 $42 7,373 $302,998

2006-07 $42 7,245 $314,471

2007-08 $36 7,700 $267,110