Item B: Funding Strategies for Transportation System Operations, Maintenance, and Preservation

Home Browse Search

address each cities? transportation funding needs. In March 2001, Springfield staff went to their council to present a wide variety of revenue options, ranging from a gas tax to a sales or gross receipts tax, which could be considered for providing additional funding for operation, maintenance and preservation of the city?s transportation network. Staff suggested that, in their initial development of alternatives for locally generated and controlled revenue sources, five possibilities seem to emerge with the potential for generating the necessary amounts of revenue: local fuel tax, transportation utility fee or ?TUF?, local sales tax, local business/occupations tax, and a local gross receipts tax.At that meeting, the Springfield Council expressed a preference for a local gas tax as a partial funding solution for Springfield?s Street Fund. None of the more broadly-based revenue sources (sales tax, gross receipts tax or business/ occupation tax) generated significant council interest. Some councilors also expressed concern about imposing a new utility fee, in light of Springfield voters? recent rejection of a tax levy. In general, the council emphasized the need for coordination with Eugene and Lane County. In anticipation of a more in-depth fall discussion by the Springfield City Council of the various transportation funding options, Springfield and Eugene staff are jointly researching issues and existing models related to both a local gas tax and a transportation utility fee. In a recent executive meeting, the city managers from both cities agreed to direct their staffs to continue to work together in exploring joint opportunities for a cooperative transportation funding effort between the cities. In addition, Eugene staff have been monitoring the work of City of Portland and how they are proposing to address their transportation funding needs.As part of the FY02 budget process, the Mayor of Portland is proposing in her budget the creation of a transportation utility. SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION - TRANSPORTATION NEEDS PRIORITIZATION The initial list of transportationsystem needs and accompanying funding gaps was assembled by staff and presented to the subcommittee. Additional information on particular items on the needs list was made available upon members? requests. In the course of discussions in September through November, it became clear that subcommittee members viewed several needs as having higher priority. A Six-Year Road Fund Financial Forecast was provided and discussed at the September 29 and November 13 meetings. Revenues were projected to be inadequate for operating needs, with the fund experiencing a deficit fund balance as early as FY04, assuming the City?s share of the County/City Road Partnership Agreement funding continues at the current annual level of $1.25 million. However, were the Partnership funding to be restored to the FY96 level of $2.7 million annually, then the operating deficit would be avoided entirely. In December, subcommittee members individually filled out a transportation needs preference survey. Members were asked to indicate whether the various needs that had been identified were very important, somewhat important, somewhat unimportant, or very unimportant. Comments were collected as well. In order to more clearly differentiate the listed needs according to importance, weighted composite scores were produced with ?very important? valued at 2, ?somewhat important? valued at 1, ?somewhat unimportant? valued at ?1 and ?very unimportant? valued at ?2. Based on the composite scores, the needs were listed in order of relative importance. Both the raw survey results and the weighted scores were provided to assist the subcommittee discussion as to which needs should be funded. 12