Laserfiche WebLink
SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION - TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ALTERNATIVES <br />In the September 29 meeting, the subcommittee adopted guiding principles for their work and endorsed <br />the idea of bringing to the Council a package proposal or combination of funding alternatives, rather than <br />a single alternative. The Guiding Principles were intended to provide a set of criteria against which <br />various alternative revenue options could be <br />evaluated and compared. <br />Guiding Principals <br />Additionally, the subcommitteerequested a copy of <br />Diversification of Revenue Sources <br />C <br />all council policies and goals, either adopted or <br />An overall funding strategy for <br />currently proposed, which would be relevant to <br />transportation system service needs <br />their consideration of transportation funding <br />should include multiple funding <br />options. Those policies and goals considered are <br />sources, which will adequately <br />included in this report as Appendix G. <br />address the full range of identified <br />transportation system service needs. <br />Staff next offered for consideration a broad-based <br />Consistency with Goals and Policies <br />C <br />list of potential funding sources which might be <br />All proposals for sources and uses of <br />used by the City to generate additional revenue for <br />funds, overall funding strategies and <br />transportation system service needs.This list <br />other subcommittee products should <br />included over 20 potential revenue sources in broad <br />be consistent with adopted City <br />categories ranging from assessment mechanisms, <br />Council Goals and City policies. <br />property tax-based options, various forms of excise <br />Legal Defensibility <br />C <br />taxes, utility/user fees, as well as more traditional <br />The City must have clear and <br />general municipal revenue sources (see <br />Funding <br />incontrovertible authorityand ability <br />Alternatives for Transportation System Needs, <br />under state and federal statutes to <br />Appendix H). Additional revenue alternatives were <br />implementthe proposed revenue <br />suggested by subcommittee members in the course <br />sources and uses. <br />of subsequent discussions. The subcommittee <br />Financial Feasibility <br />C <br />directed staff to provide further analysis on several <br />Funding sources must be able to <br />alternatives, listed below: <br />produce timely, adequate revenue <br />Property taxes (both local option <br />! <br />streams with a high degree of long- <br />levy and general obligation bonds) <br />term sustainability. <br />Expanded assessment <br />! <br />Politically Supportable <br />C <br />practices/local improvement <br />An overall funding strategy for <br />districts <br />transportation system service needs <br />Broadened use of systems <br />! <br />mustbe deemed politically acceptable <br />development charges (SDCs) <br />by both the City Council and the <br />Motor fuel tax on distributors <br />! <br />general public in terms of appropriate <br />(including sales outside city) <br />uses of public resources, general <br />Transportation utility fee <br />! <br />fairness to system users, and level of <br />Street improvement fee <br />! <br />acceptance for funding proposals. <br />The funding strategy and specific <br />Staff prepared analyses, attached as Appendix I, on <br />revenue sources must also be easily <br />the alternatives selected by the subcommittee. <br />understood by citizens and have a <br />These were presented and discussed at the <br />direct relationship to specific <br />November 13 and December 11 meetings. <br />community transportation system <br />service needs. <br />16 <br />