My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item B - Transport. Funding
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 01/19/05 WS
>
Item B - Transport. Funding
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:11:39 PM
Creation date
1/12/2005 1:44:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/19/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The Pavement Preservation Funding Need and Estimated Revenue Yields <br />The implementation of a 3-cent local motor vehicle fuel tax in August 2003, together with the <br />reimbursement component of the transportation SDC and the transfer from Lane County of new OTIA <br />II! maintenance and preservation monies, has allowed the City to begin addressing the significant <br />backlog of pavement preservation projects. However, this backlog is projected to grow from the current <br />level of nearly $94 million to a projected $180 million within the next decade. Additional funding is <br />needed to reverse this trend to ensure the efficient and safe operation of our local transportation system. <br />In its report to the council in October 2001, the Citizen Budget Subcommittee on Transportation System <br />Funding determined that the appropriate level of new revenue to provide adequate funding for Eugene's <br />transportation system was $9 million per year, with $8.5 for pavement preservation and $500,000 for the <br />off-street bicycle system and traffic calming elements. This funding level of $8.5 million for the <br />pavement preservation program continues to be an appropriate target because it would allow the City to <br />make effective progress in addressing the backlog of pavement preservation projects while also <br />mitigating disruption to the transportation system and to the community due to construction. <br />Using the most updated information on actual local fuel tax collections, staff estimates that a Eugene <br />fuel tax generates annual revenue of approximately $725,000 per one cent of tax. This is somewhat <br />higher than initial yield estimates for this revenue source but is an accurate reflection of Eugene's first <br />14 months of actual collections. Extrapolating this data, Eugene could anticipate the following total <br />revenue yields at the various tax levels shown: <br /> <br /> Motor Vehicle Estimated Annual <br /> Fuel Tax Level Revenue Yield <br /> 3 cents (current) $2,175,000 <br /> 5 cents (2-cent increase) $3,625,000 <br /> 7 cents (4-cent increase) $5,250,000 <br /> 10 cents (7-cent increase) $7,250,000 <br /> <br />In addition to the current 3-cent fuel tax, dedicated pavement preservation revenues from transportation <br />reimbursement SDCs and from the new County/City OTIA II! revenue-sharing agreement are expected <br />to provide an estimated $1.0 - $1.5 million per year in dedicated pavement preservation funding. To <br />address the $7 million remaining pavement preservation revenue gap with a local motor vehicle fuel tax <br />alone would require that the council adopt a local fuel tax in the 1 O-cent-per-gallon range. The goal of <br />revenue generation aside, other fiscal and public policies that weigh in this decision are outlined below. <br />Other Considerations, Goals and Principles <br />Diversification of Revenue - One of the Guiding Principles used by the Citizen Budget Subcommittee in <br />the development of its recommendation for new, locally-controlled revenue sources for transportation <br />funding was the principle of diversification of revenue sources. The concept adhered to by the <br />subcommittee was that an overall funding strategy for transportation system service needs should <br />include multiple funding sources which will adequately address the full range of identified <br />transportation system service needs. For that reason, the subcommittee was reluctant to consider <br />transportation funding recommendations which relied on only one primary source of revenue. This <br />resulted in a recommendation by the subcommittee for a combination funding package consisting of a <br />transportation utility fee and a small local motor vehicle fuel tax. <br /> <br /> L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050119\S050119B.doc <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.