Item B - Transportation Funding - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Excerpt from "Transportation System Funding Interim Report," A report from the Eugene Budget Committee Citizen Subcommittee, dated June 2001 Property Taxes General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds Backed by a Property Tax Levy Subcommittee members expressed concern as to whether the City could generate voter support for a G.O. Bond or Local Option Levy, given the recent failure of the police and fire station ballot measures. It was also noted that renewal of the Library operating levy in two years would create competition on the ballot for a transportation funding tax levy. This concern was countered with the belief that voter opposition could be overcome by identifying specific improvements that would benefit residents in broad geographic areas and also by limiting the increase in the debt tax levy to specific amount. This is similar to the funding approach used by the City of Salem. The subcommittee also acknowledged that the City was very conservative in its debt practices and could afford to "leverage up" slightly for some priority funding issues. Another concern voiced by the subcommittee members was that only property owners would be responsible for paying for this funding, and not necessarily all users of the transportation system. Several subcommittee members expressed doubt as to whether G.O. bonds represented a stable, long- term funding source. The opinion was also expressed that the tax levy mechanism did not lend itself well to funding what essentially is a utility need. The subcommittee continued to examine this alternative, though the December survey showed that this alternative was rated as having a low likelihood of being political feasible. The subcommittee agreed that, regardless of the solution recommended, the Council would have a major task in educating the community about the importance of the need for street improvements. While this option was one of three that made it to the final stages of discussion for a potential funding package, it was the ultimate conclusion of the subcommittee that the City should not resort to G.O. bonds to resolve its transportation funding needs. The six subcommittee respondents assigned a low likelihood of political supportability to this revenue alternative.