West Linn narrows pedestrian priorities, explores fee and bond options to fill sidewalk gaps

West Linn city staff and the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) presented a reprioritization of the city's pedestrian project list on April 21, proposing a shorter, safety-focused set of sidewalk projects and asking the council to consider new long-term funding options.

The reprioritization effort, led by the city's consultant Kittleson and Associates and presented by Eric Laius, public works director and city engineer, used updated criteria based on the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule and other regional guidance to score and rank sidewalk infill and gap projects. The new list reduced items carried over from the 2016 Transportation System Plan, removed projects that are complete or infeasible and added projects raised by recent community requests.

The update matters because the older 2016 list identified many more projects than the city can realistically fund: the 2016 TSP listed 104 pedestrian projects with roughly $20 million in total estimated cost. The reprioritization produced 107 projects divided into two categories (tier 1: streets with no sidewalks on either side; tier 2: streets with sidewalk on one side) and highlighted a shorter set of high-priority projects concentrated around schools and other key pedestrian destinations.

Staff described the reprioritization criteria as objective and grounded in state and regional rules. "We based the factors on the Transportation Planning Rule and the Regional Transportation Plan — things like proximity to schools, crash history, transit stops and whether a project fills an existing gap," Eric Laius said. The consultant scored each project on those factors and the TAB reviewed the results over multiple meetings.

Key findings and figures discussed at the session: - The consultant evaluated about 107 pedestrian improvement projects and grouped them into tier 1 and tier 2 projects. Tier 1 projects (no sidewalks on either side) generally scored highest under the adopted criteria. - From the reprioritization, staff called out eight high-priority tier 1 projects with an aggregate estimated cost of roughly $7.3 million and four high-priority tier 2 projects totaling about $5.2 million. Staff also noted many projects are only partially complete and that eight projects on the prior list were marked "complete." - The updated project-cost estimates increased from 2016 levels; staff reported updated totals of about $20.24 million across the reprioritized list.

Council members and TAB members pressed how the new criteria changed rankings. "Some streets that scored high surprised me until I remembered how heavily we weighted proximity to schools and Metro 2040 centers," Council President Baumgartner said. TAB members said the map of high-scoring projects shows clusters near schools and parks, a deliberate choice in the weighting.

Funding was the central policy discussion. Eric Laius presented two near-term options TAB and staff discussed: - A monthly traffic-safety fee modeled on a program some other cities use (staff showed an example based on Milwaukee's approach). Using Milwaukee's example numbers for only single-family and multifamily units generated an illustrative revenue figure of about $850,000 annually (using $7.11 per single-family unit and $5.71 per multifamily unit). Staff noted that does not include commercial accounts and that a citywide fee could generate more revenue and would create a stable, ongoing source to build 5,000–6,000 linear feet of sidewalk per year at current cost assumptions. - A transportation bond or revenue bond that would provide a large upfront fund for grouped projects; staff noted a bond was voter-approved in a prior cycle and that a bond could be structured so debt service is paid from a new fee or other revenue source (a revenue bond), avoiding the need for a general-obligation vote in some scenarios.

TAB chair Jeff Krug and TAB members urged the council to identify a manageable short list of top projects and to adopt a steady funding source rather than relying only on infrequent, large bonds. "If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority," Krug said, urging the council to fund a program with predictable, annual deliveries.

Council members and staff also discussed implementation capacity. Assistant City Engineer Clark Eyde and staff cautioned that even with new revenue the city's public works team must balance sidewalk projects with waterline, paving, and other capital work. "There's a diminishing return where we can't manage too much construction at once," Eyde said; staff offered to return with recommendations on a realistic annual program size and an estimate of how many projects staff can design and manage per year.

Youth and community input surfaced: Annamika Concola, reporting for the Youth Advisory Council, told the council the YAC supports increased pedestrian safety investments and connectivity to schools.

What the council asked staff to do next: refine the reprioritization by validating the top 10–20 project scores on the ground, estimate total costs for a short, fundable package, and return with options that pair funding mechanisms (a stable annual fee, a bond, or a combination) with a recommended delivery plan. TAB members offered to revisit the list and produce a prioritized short list staff could cost out.

Votes at a glance: The work session began with a procedural motion to approve the April 21 agenda; the roll call vote was recorded as unanimous and the motion passed.

The council did not take a final funding vote. Staff and TAB will return with a refined project list, cost estimates and funding scenarios for council consideration at a future meeting.