Amanda Fritz Sounds Cautionary Notes Over New Street Fee Advisory Vote

• ILLUSTRATION BY FRANCOIS VIGNEAULT

The immediate political upheaval triggered by Commissioner Amanda Fritz’s Monday dismissal of Mayor Charlie Hales and Commissioner Steve Novick’s latest stab at a street fee plan seemed to have settled down last night. That’s when Hales’ office announced it was ditching the residential half of the package, for now, in favor of an advisory vote in May asking residents to choose what they’d like instead.

But the endgame put forth by Hales and Novick—the council ostensibly enacting whichever option receives the most votes, even if none receives a majority—still may not come to pass. Because it won’t be that easy.

Fritz is reserving her ultimate judgment about the advisory vote until tonight’s hearing at 6 pm. But she tells the Mercury she “would not commit to doing whatever the most popular option says,” echoing a similar comment from one of Commissioner Nick Fish’s aides in the Oregonian last night. Those options could include a gas tax or a user fee as well as an income tax.

“I’m not going to support a regressive option,” she says, noting that city code makes clear that the results of the advisory vote, no matter what they are, are not to be seen as binding. “I’m not going to support anything that doesn’t exempt low-income people.”

Fritz’s initial announcement came days after Novick and Hales swapped out a residential income tax (already seen as not progressive enough by some) for an income-graded user fee that was supposed to be tied to gas consumption. Fritz said she wanted a tax—and that she wanted it on the November 2016 ballot, to coincide with a more liberal, higher-turnout presidential general election.

Her comments, given last night, indicate that’s still the course she prefers. She’s worried that an election this May would see “abysmal” turnout and be driven by a more conservative electorate.

And then there’s the question of what happens if and when none of the options put before voters receive majority support. Hales’ office says it’s expecting that to happen (in fact, they’ve had this in their back pocket for months, sources say)—but Fritz wonders how that outcome would be any different from where the council is right now.

One of the complaints raised by Novick and Hales is that even though most people agree there’s a funding problem for roads, it’s hard to find majority support for any one solution. That’s why they’ve refused to pick something themselves and refer it to the ballot—instead struggling to find compromises milquetoast enough that their colleagues can support without irking enough voters and business groups that an insurgent ballot challenge materializes.

That problem could easily replicate itself in an advisory vote. The top option may only have tepid support, Novick and Hales may struggle to win a third vote, and whatever’s enacted may yet wind up referred by angry citizens.

“I’m not convinced that an advisory referendum is helpful,” Fritz says, reminding everyone that the city’s already looked for this kind of guidance and balked at the choice presented: Novick polled voters on several options last June and found that an income tax focused on the wealthy received almost supermajority support.

Fritz also explained why she’s backtracked from comments back in June insisting the street fee didn’t need to go before voters.

“It’s become clear that no matter what we do,” she says, “it’s going to be referred to the ballot.”

She argues that being proactive about referring something, instead of crossing one’s fingers in hopes no one gathers enough signatures for a citizen referral, keeps the council with the upper hand. The council can choose which election it wants. The council can also write its own ballot title.

Says Fritz: “We should do what’s right.”