Item B: Update on Street and Lighting Fee Development

Home Browse Search

utility fee revenues are broad, the subcommittee identified priorities for use of revenues as described in Attachment B. These priorities for use suggest that the implementing ordinance should restrict use of funds generally to the operation, maintenance, preservation and repair of the transportation system. This approach provides for more specific allocation of funds to expenditures through the capital and operating budget processes. The structure of the subcommittee-recommended street utility fee is similar to that implemented in some other Oregon communities but differs from transportation system fees previously proposed in Eugene, in that the fee would utilize vehicular parking as a basis for measuring transportation system usage. Parking as a measure can provide a relatively simple, understandable and observable basis for establishing a rational nexus between a customer’s site and usage of the transportation system. A fundamental requirement of such a usage measurement system is that estimates or inventories of parking units at customers’ sites and for the community as a whole are established. Estimating the total number of parking spaces to be accounted for in the fee basis is a critical step in developing rates. Accounting for parking spaces depends upon several key factors and assumptions. These factors and corresponding staff recommendations for treatment of each are as follows: Inclusion or exclusion of on-street parking. Exclusion of on-street parking is recommended; ? Treatment of sites with limited or no on-site parking relying on public parking structures and ? other shared parking for a significant portion of parking needs. Recommend inclusion in the utility of sites within parking exempt areas relying on shared parking, charging a proportionate share of parking within the area to each customer’s site; Methods of measuring or estimating parking quantity at customers’ sites. Recommend ? considering use of estimating parking units at nonresidential customers’ sites, based on one of several methods – average spaces per total impervious area, available parking area or building area - rather than utilizing delineated parking spaces only; Treatment of areas available or used for parking without delineated (marked) spaces. Account ? for these areas through use of estimating parking units per other observable areas rather than counting and charging for delineated parking spaces only. Assumptions about the number of spaces associated with residential customer sites. Assume an ? average number of parking spaces associated with residential customer sites and consider either a flat fee for all residential types or varying the assumed number based on broad residential categories, e.g. single-family versus multi-family housing; Allowance for credits/adjustments to the system usage (amount of parking) billed at a site. Allow ? for adjustments to the amount of parking charged at a site due to seasonal and intermittent use, such as for schools, churches and event centers. Allow for adjustments related to reductions in transportation system usage such as documented reduction in parking units. Evaluate methods and issues for providing credits for other methods of reducing transportation system usage, such as approved travel demand management programs. Attachment B provides further discussion and rationale for these recommendations. A final key factor influencing the amount of a street utility fee is the assumed revenue requirements of the utility. The City Council identified target net annual revenue of approximately $6.5 million with $150,000 of the revenue generated to be earmarked for neighborhood traffic calming projects. The F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071121\S071121B.doc