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 37 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 East Multnomah SWCD Metro Port of Portland TriMet Urban Renewal Agencies Portland Development Commission Gresham Redevelopment Commission 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 Service District 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 with in 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 Statute 294.610 created the Commission in 1919, with the first Commission being organized in 1921. The Commission, required in counties with over 500,000 population, 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-seven 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 37 entities employ 28,326 individuals with annual budgets totaling nearly $8.216 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-seven 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 local 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 84th edition of our Annual Report. From its inception in 1919, 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 37 municipal corporations in Multnomah County under the jurisdiction of TSCC for the 2006-07 fiscal year total $8,215,694,522. This compares to $8,048,201,519 for the 2005-06 fiscal year, an increase of $167,493,003 or 2.08%. Much of the increase is due to increased spending by several districts for capital projects, including the City of Portland’s “Big Pipe” sewage project and TriMet’s two new light rail lines. Of the 37 districts, nine have lower budgets this year than last year. The largest budget is the City of Portland at $2.934 billion. The smallest is Alto Park Water District with a budget of $36,990. 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 37 budgets, the total amount for fiscal year 2006-07 comes to $6,760,135,997. The comparable number from the 200506 fiscal year was $6,509,151,570, an increase of 3.86%. Another set of numbers to look at are the budgets for the General Fund only. The General Fund 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 2006-07 the total combined General Fund budgets of the 37 districts is $2,958,407,378. This is 2.11% more than the General Fund total from 2005-06 of $2,897,174,769.

3

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

Combined Budget Totals 10 8

2005-06

6

2006-07

4 2 0 Com bined Totals

Totals Less EFB & Transfers

General Fund Only

Combined Budget Revenues The total combined 2006-07 budgeted resources, net of transfers and beginning balances, for all 37 local governments within Multnomah County is $5.141 billion. This amount is less than the $5.126 billion in revenue budgeted in 2005-06. The following chart shows the breakdown between the various sources of revenue that local governments depend on.

Combined Budget Resources by Type 2006-07

Debt Proceeds 10%

Fees & Charges 17%

Utilities 7%

Interest 1% Other 3%

Local 7%

Property Tax 20%

State 14% Federal 14%

Other Tax 7% 4

Combined Budget Revenues (Continued) Intergovernmental: Revenue from federal, state and local sources, at 35%, 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 revenue to school districts from the County ($9,484,000) and the City of Portland ($21,279,255). 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 $446,747,940 in 2006-07. The transfer of urban renewal backed debt proceeds from Portland and Gresham to their respective urban renewal agencies account for another $115,771,991 in local, intergovernmental revenue. Fees & Charges and Utilities: Local government user and franchise fees are increasing slightly as a percentage of total revenues, from 23% in 200506 to 24% 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 20% of total revenue in 2006-07. 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 declined in 2005-06 only to increase in 2006-07. Both were due primarily to Portland Public School District levies. More detailed information on property taxes can be found in the Property Tax section starting on page 10. 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 10% of revenue in 2006-07. The district with the largest amount of debt proceeds continues to be the City of Portland with over $318.8 million, mostly attributed to revenue bonds for water, sewer and LID construction projects ($126.9 million) and urban renewal ($147.1 million). Other Taxes: The Other Taxes category includes a variety of items and makes up 7% 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 $200 million in 2006-07. Multnomah County’s three-year, 1.25% personal income tax expired in 2005. However collection of delinquent payments continues and $16.5 million is expected to be collected in 2006-07. Proceeds will continue to be used primarily to fund schools. Also included in this category is Multnomah County’s business income tax, Metro’s excise tax and transient lodging taxes charged by the County and cities. 5

Combined Budget Expenditures by Object In 2006-07 the total budgeted expenditures, net of transfers and ending fund balances, for the 37 local governments within Multnomah County totals $6.760 billion. As shown in the figure below, personal services and materials and services make up the largest categories of expenditures at 32% and 33% respectively. The percentage of expenditures allocated to capital outlay has increased three percent since last year. Debt service decreased from 11% of expenditures in 2005-06 to 9% this year. Contingencies increased from 9% to 11% in 2006-07.

Combined Budget Expenditure s by Object 2006-07 Capital Outlay $1,013,963,349

Materials & Services $2,249,364,403

Debt Service $582,384,498

Contingencies $724,005,997

Personal Services, $2,190,417,750

Combined Budget Expenditures by Entity City governments, including urban renewal agencies, continue to be the highest spending type of district, with budgeted expenditures of $2.721 billion, followed by K-12 education districts and community colleges at $1.564 billion and Multnomah County at $1.017 billion.

Combined Budget Expenditures Cities $2,497,573,673

by Entity 2006-07

Education Districts $1,141,782,165

Urban Renew al Agencies $223,232,765

Water, SWCD & Service Districts $6,451,152

Fire Districts $3,907,396 TriMet $655,496,058 Port $546,816,813

Metro $245,970,940 6

Multnomah County $1,016,880,977

Community Colleges $422,024,059

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. 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%. It now does not matter how much in property taxes a school district receives from its permanent tax rate authority. Whatever they collect is simply deducted from their state funding to arrive at the same amount per student. Property tax revenue from local option levies, up to $750 per student, can be collected without a deduction from the state school fund formula.

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 Source: State of Oregon Department of Education

Soon after the state took more responsibility for funding schools, it began the process of equalizing school funding. Through this process, school districts with comparably higher levels of funding per student were flat funded while districts that had lower amounts of funding were increased or “equalized”. 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 410.8 FTE. Expenditures for personal services, for all districts combined, increased $32.3 million in 2006-07. Multnomah County eliminated 27 FTE in 2005-06 due in part to the expiration of the personal income tax. Regional governments (Metro, Port of Portland and TriMet) increased the number of FTE for 2006-07 but all budgeted for fewer FTE than they had in 2003-04. The City of Portland increased the number of FTE by 115. Portland Public Schools added 82 FTE after eliminating 315 positions in 2005-06. Other school districts, particularly David Douglas and Centennial have increased staffing to account for larger numbers of students.

Total Num ber of Staff Positions (Full Time Equivalents) 2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Change 05-06 to 06-07

M ultnomah County

4,436.0

4,437.0

4,453.0

4,410.0

-27.0

Regional Districts East Multnomah SW CD Metro Port TriMet Subtotal Regional

4.3 691.2 797.9 2,574.0 4,067.4

3.3 654.5 770.9 2,561.0 3,989.7

5.0 660.6 768.6 2,489.0 3,923.2

7.5 673.9 776.3 2,535.0 3,992.7

2.5 13.3 7.7 46.0 67.0

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

168.5 0.0 5,161.0 33.5 526.0 1.0 74.5 11.6 5,976.1

174.5 0.0 5,645.0 34.5 544.2 1.0 74.8 13.8 6,487.8

176.5 0.0 5,651.0 36.5 527.4 1.0 76.3 14.8 6,483.5

177.5 0.0 5,766.0 38.5 554.9 1.0 77.3 13.8 6,629.0

1.0 0.0 115.0 2.0 27.5 0.0 1.0 -1.0 145.5

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

858.3 2,337.0 3,195.3

919.4 2,390.0 3,309.4

935.1 2,384.0 3,319.1

946.6 2,460.0 3,406.6

11.5 76.0 87.5

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

623.4 4,953.0 337.7 1,048.0 1,029.5 643.0 56.8 880.1 55.0 9,626.5

744.5 4,897.0 371.7 1,141.0 1,066.9 657.0 59.5 931.2 67.0 9,935.8

699.9 4,582.0 370.5 1,193.0 1,100.6 682.6 61.3 991.3 61.3 9,742.5

675.7 4,664.0 379.5 1,187.0 1,104.4 694.9 55.7 1,059.3 61.3 9,881.8

-24.2 82.0 9.0 -6.0 3.8 12.3 -5.6 68.0 0.0 139.3

6.45

7.10

5.9

-1.5

27,307.8

28,165.8

28,326.0

413.3

Entity

Various Other Total

8

7.35 27,912.7

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. TriMet and East Multnomah SWCD provide non-PERS retirement plans for their employees; the City of Portland has a special property tax levy that funds a separate pension program for sworn police officers and firefighters. Pleasant Home Water District does not provide retirement benefits for its employees and the other 9 districts either have no employees or utilize only part time, contract personnel. 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. 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, 2003 and July 1, 2005. Rates increased dramatically for 2005. To soften the impact, PERS adopted a phased in increase, with the second phase set for July 1, 2007. The 2007 rate will be subject to biennial review so rates will most likely be adjusted from those shown here. PERS Employer Rates Rate as of July 1, 2003

Rate as of July 1, 2005

Est. Rate for July 1, 2007

General Government Districts Multnomah County/Service Districts* Metro* Port of Portland* City of Portland/PDC* City of Fairview*** City of Gresham* City of Troutdale*** City of Wood Village Corbett RFPD No. 14 Corbett Water

6.78 7.14 6.18 3.84 13.44 8.41 10.59 6.14 7.81 12.16

11.18 7.76** 8.39** 8.07 14.04 11.38 17.19 11.06 12.55 19.57

15.57 12.83** 12.07** 12.29 14.04 14.35 17.19 15.99 17.29 26.98

Education Districts Mt. Hood Community College* Portland Community College* 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*

0.64 0.64 2.78 0.64 11.11 0.64 3.20 11.11 11.11 11.11 0.64

0.98 3.02 7.56 0.59 16.97 1.88 5.73 16.97 16.97 16.97 3.29

6.47 8.51 13.43 4.42 22.84 7.75 11.60 22.84 22.84 22.84 9.16

* Rates have been reduced due to lump sum payment to PERS from sale of bonds to cover all or a portion of UAL **Rate reduced as of March 1, 2006 to reflect UAL bonds sold after July 1, 2005 ***District chose to not phase in rate, resulting in higher rate as of July 1, 2005 and lower rate as of July 1, 2007 Note: Not shown are the rates for Portland, Fairview, Gresham, Troutdale and Wood Village to cover a $79 million liability for former employees of Fire District 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 2006-07 fiscal year, a total of $980,179,477.78 has been imposed in ad valorem property taxes. An additional $6,673,016.90 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 $986,852,494.68 compares to the total amount of taxes imposed in 2005-06 of $932,428,285.04, a 5.84 percent increase. Fire districts, East Multnomah SWCD 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. Four districts - the East Multnomah SWCD, the City of Maywood Park, 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 $51.440 billion in 2006-07, a 4.6% increase over the assessed value in 2005-06.

Assessed Value by Type Multnomah County 2006-07 Commercial 20% Personal 5% Industrial 5%

Residential 59%

Multiple Housing 5% Utilities 5%

11

Other 1%

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 40% 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 2006-07 is $87.014 billion which is 11.5% more than the real market value in 2005-06 of $78.063 billion.

Real Market Value by Type Multnomah County 2006-07 Commercial 22% Personal 3% Industrial 3%

Residential 63%

Utilities 3%

Multiple Housing 5% 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 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 51% 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 $20 billion has be exempted in 2006-07. 12

Value Growth The breakdown of value between residential, commercial, industrial and utilities shows very little overall change in the last two years, as shown in the following graph. Since 1998-99, residential value, as a percent of total assessed value, has increased from 54% to 59% while industrial and utility value has decreased from 12.8% to 9.9%. R e s id e n t ia l A s s e s s e d V a lu e v s . O t h e r V a lu e s M u l tn o m a h C o u n ty 40

Value in $ Billions

35

R e s id e n t ia l C o m m e r c ia l

30

In d u s t r ia l

25

U t ilit ie s

20 15 10 5 0 1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Assessed value growth on unchanged properties is limited to a maximum

Assessed Value Growth Area beyond the three percent indicates new of three percent per year.byGrowth 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 grew by 4.6% countywide, there was variation throughout the county. As shown in the graph below, the highest growth area in 2006-07 was inside the City of Troutdale at 7%. The slowest growing areas were within the City of Maywood Park (3%) and the Cities of Portland and Gresham at 4%. 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 4.6% in 2006-07. Portland accounts for nearly 81% of the total assessed value in Multnomah County.

Change in Assessed Value Growth for Cities within Multnomah County 10%

9%

9%

9% 2005-06

8% 7%

7% 6% 5% 4%

7%

2006-07

6% 5% 4%

4% 4% 3% 3%

3%

3%

2% 1% 0% Gresham

Fairview

Mayw ood Park

13

Troutdale

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 2006-07 is $20.14 per $1,000 of assessed value, up from the 2005-06 amount of $19.80. Meanwhile, the total tax rate for properties on Sauvie Island, outside of any incorporated city, is $12.65. Tax Rates for 2006-07 by Category and Tax Code Area M ultnom ah County Per $1,000 AV

D eb t S er vi ce G ener al G o ver nment E d ucat i o n

25

$ 2 0 .14 20

$ 17 .2 8

$ 16 .2 9

$ 17 .13

$ 15 .6 5

$ 16 .16

$ 15 .8 0

P o rt la nd

G re s ha m

M a ywo o d P a rk

T ro ut da le

C o rbe t t

F a irv ie w

Wo o d V illa ge

C o de 0 0 1

C o de 0 2 6

C o de 3 3 1

C o de 2 4 2

C o de 3 5 8

C o de 2 4 0

C o de 2 4 1

15 10 5 0

Total Property Taxes Imposed The following graph shows the total amount of property taxes imposed by governments in Multnomah County increasing in 2006-07. A total of $986,852,495, $54.4 million more than 2005-06, is to be collected. This is a 5.8% increase. Total Property Taxes Imposed w ithin Multnomah County $ Millions 1, 2 0 0

1, 0 0 0 $851 800

$673

$631

$ 6 17

$654 $653 $593

$573

$559

93- 94

94 - 95

95- 96

600

$741

$800

99- 00

00- 01

$875

$964 $932

$987

04- 05

06- 07

$928

$ 7 15

400

200

0 90- 91

91- 92

92- 93

96- 97

97- 98

98- 99

14

01- 0 2

02- 03

03- 04

05- 06

Types of Property Taxes The table below reflects the changes in the types of ad valorem taxes imposed. Overall there was a 6% increase in taxes imposed from 2005-06 to 2006-07. This compares to a 3% decrease 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 Portland Public School’s receiving reauthorization to impose its gap bond levy. Local option levies increased 8%. These taxes benefited from less Measure 5 compression due to a widening gap between assessed value and real market value. Bonded debt levies increased 1%. Urban renewal taxes imposed increased 12.3%. 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, 2005-06 and 2006-07 within Multnomah County Type of District

Permanent Rate & Gap Levies 05-06

06-07

Million $ County

196.4

204.9

Change

Bond Levies

Local Option 05-06

06-07

Million $

05-06 Change

4%

28.9

31.1

8%

Million $ 9.7

Total

06-07

05-06 Change

9.5

-2%

06-07

Million $ 235.0

245.5

Change 4.5%

Cities

274.7

283.3

3%

22.9

24.9

9%

10.1

9.9

-2%

307.7

318.0

3.3%

Schools

254.3

278.9

10%

0.4

0.5

25%

34.2

36.2

6%

288.9

315.6

9.2%

12.3

12.5

2%

0.4

0.4

0%

14.1

13.4

-5%

26.8

26.3

-1.9%

66.6

74.8

12.3%

925.0

980.2

Special Districts Urban Renewal Total Taxes

737.7

779.6

6%

52.6

56.9

8%

68.1

69.0

1%

6.0%

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 just over $9 million. For 2006-07 education districts lost $3,761,097 to Measure 5 compression loss. This is an increase over 2005-06 of over $2 million. The reason for the increase is the higher tax rate for Portland Public Schools, which went from $4.7743 per $1,000 to $5.2781 due to reauthorization of its gap bond levy. General governments went from almost no Measure 5 reductions in 1996-97 to $26.5 million this year. This year, the General Government Measure 5 loss decreased by $4.2 million, primarily because real market value increased more than assessed value. Countywide, real market value increased 11.5% while assessed value increased only 4.6%. This had the effect of reducing the number of properties that reached the Measure 5 limit of $10 per thousand of real market value.

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 two urban renewal agencies in Multnomah County: Portland Development Commission, acting on behalf of the City of Portland, and the City of Gresham’s Redevelopment Commission. 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 2006-07, PDC did not use $1.838 billion in excess value resulting in approximately $30.6 million in additional property tax revenue for schools, the county, regional districts, and Portland. Since 1998-99, over $13 billion in excess value has been returned to taxing districts, as shown in the graph below.

$ Billions

6

F ig u r e 2 . P D C E x c e s s V a lu e U s e d & Unused

5

Ex c e s s V a lu e No t Us e d

4

Ex c e s s V a lu e Us e d

3 2 1 0 98-99

99-00

0 0 -0 1

01-02

02-03

16

03-04

04-05

05-06

06-07

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% 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% 32.3%

35%

32.0% 2005-06

30% 25%

25.0%

2006-07

20% 15% 7.6%

10% 5%

2.3%

0.8%

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 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 2.8% of the total current year taxes imposed were delinquent as of June 30, 2006. 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 the 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, 2006 in Multnomah County are shown in the following chart. At the end of fiscal year 2005-06, outstanding debt totaled $5.177 billion - up from $5.114 billion on June 30, 2005 .

Outstanding Long Term Debt by Type as of June 30, 2006 within Multnomah County PERS Bonds 27%

Lim ited Tax Bonds / Full Faith & Credit 8%

Revenue Bonds 43%

Other 3% Urban Renew al Tax Increm ent Bonds 5%

General Obligation Bonds 14%

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

Outstanding Long TermDebt as of June 30, 2006

$3,000

$2,500

$2.391

$ Million

$2,000

$1,500

$1.279

$1,000 $0.566 $0.357

$500

$0.214

$0.269 $0.075

$0.026

Cit y of

All Ot her s

$0 Cit y of

Por t of

Educat ion

Mult nomah

Por t land

Port land

( Combined)

Count y

18

Met r o

Tr iMet

Gr esham

Debt Summary

Amount of Original Issue

Amount Outstanding 6/30/2006

Principal & Interest 2006-07

Debt Summary By Bond Type General Obligation Bonds

1,348,396,222

737,471,133

95,892,092

Urban Renewal Tax Increment Bonds

368,230,000

284,595,000

27,819,321

Improvement Bonds/Bancroft Bonds

46,100,000

15,795,000

1,765,108

573,497,233

436,130,877

43,975,230

PERS Bonds

1,442,582,453

1,416,631,346

82,611,956

Revenue Bonds - Public

Limited Tax Obligation Bonds/Full Faith & Credit Obligations

2,795,945,966

2,136,116,337

190,127,672

Lease Purchase (COPs & Other)

160,178,751

54,150,627

13,647,859

Long Term Loans (State & Other)

82,679,062

60,831,488

5,598,022

Industrial Revenue Bonds - Private

38,165,000

35,075,000

0

6,855,774,687

5,176,796,807

461,437,259

Multnomah County

604,404,088

357,422,769

35,745,067

Metro

318,990,183

213,681,106

25,246,611

Port of Portland

818,692,177

565,900,623

52,543,183

TriMet

367,643,865

269,347,103

28,439,668

3,105,810

565,051

GRAND TOTAL

Debt Summary By Local Units

Portland Development Commission

N/A

Cities

2,995,551,554

2,485,162,528

212,923,101

Education Districts

1,747,128,070

1,279,219,573

105,753,803

352,000

190,000

26,570

3,012,750

2,767,296

194,205

5,176,796,807

461,437,259

Fire Districts Water Districts GRAND TOTAL

6,855,774,687

19

SUMMARY of BUDGET TOTALS Multnomah County Actual 2003-04 Multnomah County Regional Districts: East Multnomah Soil & Water Conservation Metro Port of Portland TriMet Transportation District Sub-Total Regional Districts Portland Development Commission Gresham Redevelopment Commission Cities: Portland Fairview Gresham Maywood Park Troutdale Wood Village Sub-Totals UR Agencies and Cities Community Colleges: Mt. Hood Community College Portland Community College Sub-Total Community Colleges

Actual 2004-05

Budget 2005-06

Budget 2006-07

1,045,234,922

1,212,568,611

1,224,092,900

1,130,702,912

0 299,353,773 685,716,946 527,591,491

183,075 290,144,210 708,040,285 500,713,759

1,780,128 310,217,918 908,276,882 558,749,961

2,401,771 315,992,234 748,638,023 687,108,155

1,512,662,210

1,499,081,329

1,779,024,889

1,754,140,183

248,900,669 383,779

228,033,164 1,284,349

262,612,838 13,423,536

247,070,742 7,606,609

2,340,761,851 17,709,037 265,148,013 546,796 22,344,522 5,760,408

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

2,787,447,276 18,590,352 308,142,163 547,855 26,151,702 9,090,635

2,933,560,038 19,854,258 301,654,190 494,163 34,304,628 10,723,403

2,901,555,075

3,273,073,759

3,426,006,357

3,555,268,031

108,118,717 374,700,890

110,639,954 424,267,068

123,074,945 302,598,019

176,506,495 310,739,835

482,819,607

534,907,022

425,672,964

487,246,330

K-12 School Districts: Multnomah Education Service District Portland Parkrose Reynolds Gresham-Barlow Centennial Corbett David Douglas Riverdale

106,558,192 582,152,062 46,366,680 104,852,909 116,205,167 78,604,923 6,578,529 141,004,035 8,173,451

80,324,835 597,064,497 47,551,186 159,265,508 123,705,547 69,439,222 6,854,405 145,632,456 8,298,332

76,915,391 546,627,615 53,603,191 135,052,222 130,595,159 80,369,554 7,716,754 143,980,000 9,110,944

78,327,298 554,256,699 54,328,875 202,789,700 132,672,034 84,671,307 7,671,073 152,364,000 9,186,310

Sub-Total K-12 School Districts

1,190,495,948

1,238,135,988

1,183,970,830

1,276,267,296

2,252,699 1,157,477 887,291 172,157

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

1,959,123 0 814,916 228,443

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

4,469,624

5,088,251

3,002,482

5,058,767

28,553 651,067 2,177,466 406,276 1,306,001 303,164 702,498

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

32,074 392,300 1,923,371 361,500 1,103,614 308,054 834,249

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

5,575,025

4,775,847

4,955,162

5,413,278

686,704 1,070,179

784,540 731,182

933,860 542,075

968,000 629,725

1,756,883

1,515,722

1,475,935

1,597,725

7,144,569,294

7,769,146,529

8,048,201,519

8,215,694,522

Rural Fire Protection Districts: Multnomah Fire 10 Riverdale Multnomah Fire 14 Sauvie Island 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) 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) 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 Property Tax Rate Total Taxes Imposed Measure 5 Loss Number of Employees (FTE’s) PDX Passenger Volume in Millions Air Cargo in Tons Marine Container Boxes

2004-05 $44.911 $70.458

2005-06 $46.350 $78.098

2006-07 $48.226 $87.058

$4.3434 $0.7550 $0.1801 $5.2785 $224,834,291 $-13,795,470 4,437

$4.3434 $0.7550 $0.2081 $5.3065 $236,446,292 $-11,297,437 4,453

$4.3434 $0.7550 $0.1965 $5.2949 $246,743,688 $-10,220,015 4,410

2004-05 N/A N/A

2005-06 $32.829 $54.603

2006-07 $34.192 $61.081

N/A N/A N/A 3.3

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

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

2004-05 $96.5 $142.294

2005-06 $100.604 $156.692

2006-07 $105.615 $181.787

$0.0966 $0.1872 $0.2838 $27,329.072 $-128,666 654.50

$0.0966 $0.1875 $0.2841 $28,564,715 $-111,374 660.58

$0.0966 $0.1816 $0.2782 $29,357,370 $-103,617 673.88

93 700,630 1,336,287 582,568

85 630,000 1,310,000 572,886

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

2004-05 $106.588 $155.962

2005-06 $111.219 $171.735

2006-07 $116.852 $199.557

$0.0701 $0.0701 $7,413,604 $-93,682 770.9 13.5 271,317 182,300

$0.0701 $0.0701 $7,746,142 $-80,289 768.6 14.1 291,500 88,700

$0.0701 $0.0701 $8,144,333 $-75,265 776.3 14.6 300,800 130,800

21

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 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 Special Levy Tax Rate 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)

2004-05 $96.101 $141.625

2005-06 $100.152 $155.761

2006-07 $105.130 $180.771

$0.1104 $10,644,662 N/A 2,561

$0.1191 $11,966,721 N/A 2,489

$0.0973 $10,259492 N/A 2,535

63,906,000 1,026,156 31,920,000 96,852,156 309,676

63,129,600 1,050,144 32,606,400 96,785,578 308,128

63,129,600 1,097,400 33,258,528 97,485,528 312,927

2004-05 $3.571 $2.361 $1.732 $7.664 10 $0.3897 $62,079,036 $-3,608,422 174.5

2005-06 $4.065 $2.779 $1.705 $8.534 11 $0.3754 $65,783,309 $-2,848,986 176.5

2006-07 $4.065 $3.128 $1.838 $8.959 11 $0.3588 $73,618,557 $-2,806,283 177.5

2004-05 $437.5 $42.4 $479.9 1 N/A $703,604 $-39

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

2006-07 $437.5 $79.1 $516.6 1 N/A $1,240,316 $-62

2004-05 $36.126 $58.806

2005-06 $37.177 $65.309

2006-07 $38.674 $72.904

$4.5770 $2.3950 $0.3900 $0.4026 $0.2145 $7.9791 $271,402,297 $-17,679,273 5,645

$4.5770 $2.3293 $0.3900 $0.4026 $0.2192 $7.9181 $280,976,486 $-14,542,391 5,651

$4.5770 $2.2379 $0.3900 $0.4026 $0.2053 $7.8128 $289,706,711 $-13,133,890 5,766

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 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) City of Wood Village 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)

2004-05 $405.4 $557.2

2005-06 $441.4 $638.6

2006-07 $466.0 $718.9

$3.4902 $1,430,611 $-287 34.5

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

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

2004-05 $5.371 $7.087

2005-06 $5.591 $7.714

2006-07 $5.808 $8.496

$3.6129 $0.3449 $3.9578 $21,299,152 $-558 544.25

$3.6129 $0.1879 $3.8008 $21,297,822 $-559 527.35

$3.6129 $0.1850 $3.7979 $22,153,282 $-548 554.85

2004-05 $44.3 $61.8

2005-06 $45.8 $68.8

2006-07 $47.3 $76.5

$0.0090 $399 $0 1

$0.2448 $11,207 $0 1

$0.4563 $21,596 $-1 1

2004-05 $817.5 $1,080.8

2005-06 $871.0 $1,202.2

2006-07 $933.3 $1,374.7

$3.7652 $0.6912 $4.4564 $3,660,063 $-163 74.8

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

$3.7652 $0.6939 $4.4591 $4,176,991 $-108 77.3

2004-05 $193.9 $271.8

2005-06 $210.7 $304.5

2006-07 $221.3 $339.6

$3.1262 $614,797 $-3 13.8

$3.1262 $658,607 $-3 14.8

$3.1262 $692,747 $-2 13.8

23

Mt. Hood 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 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*

2004-05 $16.594 $22.684

2005-06 $17.249 $24.735

2006-07 $18.063 $27.846

$0.4917 $0.0064 $0.4981 $8,168,979 $-117,315 919.36

$0.4917 $0.0000 $0.4917 $8,394,479 $-110,447 935.12

$0.4917 $0.0000 0.4917 $8,793,283 $-110,769 946.63

23,341 8,191 $63

23,341 8,191 $63

23,341 8,191 $66

2004-05 $75.031 $111.982

2005-06 $78.201 $123.144

2006-07 $81.779 $143.777

$0.2828 $0.2271 $0.5099 $38,060,501 $-255,549 2,390

$0.2828 $0.2122 $0.4950 $36,588,202 $-123,733 2,384

$0.2828 $0.2061 $0.4889 $39,821,292 $-211,455 2,460

91,031 23,406 $62

88,255 22,808 $64

91,000 23,300 $67

2004-05 $45.662 $71.514

2005-06 $47.140 $79.324

2006-07 $49.053 $88.572

$0.4576 $20,594,426 $-364,329 744.49

$0.4576 $21,520,950 $-137,191 699.88

$0.4576 $22,221,237 $-290,406 675.67

108,679.7

108,110.3

106,815.1

2004-05 $30.490 $50.806

2005-06 $31.384 $56.771

2006-07 $32.559 $63.356

$5.2781 $0.7500 $1.1511 $7.1792 $211,636,399 $-7,735,642 4,897 44,232.8 53,941.3

$4.7743 $0.0000 $0.0000 $4.7743 $149,858,312 $-415,195 4,582 43,560.4 54,462.9

$5.2781 $0.0000 $0.0000 $5.2781 $169,882,690 $-2,203,988 4,664 42,838.0 53,080.9

*Latest May extimates 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 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

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

2004-05 $2.457 $3.279

2005-06 $2.501 $3.469

2006-07 $2.669 $3.770

$4.8906 $1.8046 $6.6952 $15,919,694 $-550,221 371.73 3,394.8 4,407.3

$4.8906 $1.4386 $6.3292 $15,304,267 $-541,112 370.54 3,279.3 4,215.7

$4.8906 $1.3729 $6.2635 $16,154,032 $-598,161 379.52 3,360.0 4,190.0

2004-05 $3.881 $5.186

2005-06 $4.044 $5.682

2006-07 $4.246 $6.314

$4.4626 $1.5805 $6.0431 $23,345,483 $-210,981 1,141 10,170.7 13,316.7

$4.4626 $1.5525 $6.0151 $24,295,072 $-191,206 1,193 10,510.9 13,831.8

$4.4626 $1.4871 $5.9497 $25,174,414 $-179,394 1,187 10,400.0 13,756.8

2004-05 $4.122 $5.465

2005-06 $4.326 $6.021

2006-07 $4.478 $6.689

$4.5268 $3.5473 $8.0741 $27,327,211 $-197,205 1,066.87 11,639.0 13,936.3

$4.5268 $3.3809 $7.9077 $27,893,858 $-195,056 1,100.64 11,657.3 13,957.2

$4.5268 $3.5634 $8.0902 $27,916,961 $-176,630 1,104.38 11,625.0 13,944.5

2004-05 $1.736 $2.364

2005-06 $1.814 $2.587

2006-07 $1.904 $2.988

$4.7448 $2.1861 $6.9309 $11,993,662 $-57,583 657 6,210.7 7,688.2

$4.7448 $2.1941 $6.9389 $12,555,379 $-44,054 682.6 6,311.6 7,871.6

$4.7448 $2.2173 $6.9621 $13,216,457 $-40,497 694.9 6,403.0 7882.8

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 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 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)

2004-05 $255.4 $326.9

2005-06 $265.1 $362.2

2006-07 $275.1 $394.5

$4.5941 $4.4373 $9.0314 $1,890,291 $-12,652 59.5 601.6 738.9

$4.5941 $5.0149 $9.6090 $2,062,728 $-10,158 61.3 605.6 748.7

$4.5941 $3.7453 $8.3394 $1,916,896 $-9,302 55.7 605.0 751.4

2004-05 $2.297 $3.475

2005-06 $2.363 $3.744

2006-07 $2.456 $4.266

$4.6394 $1.9529 $6.5923 $15,131,056 $-46,454 931.2 9,263.9 12,067.5

$4.6394 $1.9101 $6.5495 $15,548,123 $-39,591 991.3 9,625.2 12,404.4

$4.6394 $2.1941 $6.8335 $16,785,596 $-32,960 1,059.3 9,805.0 12,628.0

2004-05 $429.3 $622.0

2005-06 $449.5 $700.0

2006-07 $473.0 $800.0

$3.8149 $0.6550 $2.5454 $7.0153 $3,020,143 $-2,519 67 472.0 538.5

$3.8149 $0.6550 $2.1783 $6.6482 $2,986,250 $-2,590 61.3 473.6 618.0

$3.8149 $1.0700 $2.0265 $6.9114 $3,286,729 $-6,570 61.3 442.0 580.7

2004-05 $431.7 $554.8

2005-06 $440.0 $606.6

2006-07 $443.9 $686.9

$2.8527 $1,236,114 $-7 0.15

$2.8527 $1,260,290 $-7 0.15

$2.8527 $1,268,510 $-6 0.15

26

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 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)

27

2004-05 $471.8 $679.8

2005-06 $492.1 $768.1

2006-07 $517.4 $882.8

$1.2361 $0.4300 $1.6661 $788,230 $-425

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

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

2004-05 $243.5 $313.5

2005-06 $252.1 $348.2

2006-07 $261.9 $381.7

$1.2624 $307,772 $-18 0.5

$1.2624 $320,316 $-17 0.5

$1.2624 $330,868 $-15 0.5

2004-05 $116.5 $149.6

2005-06 $120.9 $153.7

2006-07 $124.5 $162.6

$0.7894 $0.0944 $0.2522 $1.1360 $132,412 $-2 0.5

$0.7894 $0.5510 $0.2282 $1.5686 $190,031 $-5 0.5

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

2004-05 $16.3 $25.4

2005-06 $17.4 $29.6

2006-07 $18.3 $33.3

$1.5985 $0.2500 $1.8485 $30,083

$1.5985 $0.2500 $1.8485 $32,243

$1.5985 $0.2500 $1.8485 $33,801

2004-05 $24.9 $34.0

2005-06 $25.8 $38.9

2006-07 $26.9 $40.5

$3.4269 $85,130 0.25

$3.4269 $89,884 0.25

$3.4269 $92,209 0.25

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

2004-05 $193.7 $249.4

2005-06 $201.1 $278.3

2006-07 $209.2 $304.3

$0.5781 $112,058 3.8

$0.5781 $116,402 4.05 2005-06

$0.5781 $121,043 3.05

2004-05 $82.9 $108.0 $0.2423 $20,202 0.4 2004-05 $376.2 $545.9 2004-05 $92.2 $119.3 1.5 2004-05 $132.2 $173.5 $0.4977 $65,797

28

$86.5 $118.5 $0.2423 $21,163 0.4 2005-06 $392.7 $618.3 2005-06 $96.3 $132.4 1.5 2005-06

2006-07 $89.5 $131.6 $0.2423 $21,683 0.4 2006-07 $414.3 $713.5 2006-07 $101.5 $149.3 1.0

$137.7 $195.4

2006-07 $144.3 $225.3

$0.4778 $65,805

$0.4448 $64,192