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

Home Browse Search

In December, individual subcommitteemembersalso completed a survey in which they evaluated the various revenue alternatives against the subcommittee?s Guiding Principles. Members were asked if each alternative merited further discussion. The survey results were provided to the subcommittee. After further discussions, the subcommitteetook straw polls on five revenue alternatives that had received considerable member attention. The results were as follows: Subcommittee Straw Poll Results, Revenue Alternatives (12/11/00) Local Option Levy7:0 opposed General Obligation Bonds6:1 opposed Parking Tax 5:2 opposed Fuel Tax on Distributors4:3 in favor Transportation Utility Fee 6:1 in favor Staff continued to develop analyses and provide information as the subcommittee members proceeded with their considerations of revenue alternatives. The alternative for a motor fuel tax on distributor sales outside the city was found not to be allowable under state law, so a local motor fuel tax was discussed instead. In the January 29 meeting, the transportation utility fee continued to be the revenue alternative with the highest level of member support. A local motor fuel tax also received majority support. Staff were asked to prepare funding scenarios incorporating combinations of a transportation utility fee, a motor fuel tax and G.O. bonds. The remainingrevenue alternatives were not discussed further. Consensus was reached that all residents and visitors, whether motor vehicle drivers or non-drivers, have an important stake in maintaining the City?s transportationinfrastructure. Even non-drivers have mail delivered and require access to mass transit, city bicycle lanes and off-street bike paths. Whether walking to visit friends, bicycling to work, driving to the doctor?s office, or traveling by bus to school, everyone depends on the city transportation network and should rightly contribute to its upkeep. The subcommittee was interested in revenue alternatives that would result in non-residents paying a share, along with city residents. A transportation utility fee (TUF) is applied universally and is an equitablerevenue source to which all property users contribute according to their share of impact on the system. The fee paid by retail and commercialproperty users will be partially passed on to non-resident visitors shopping or working in the city. All property within the city, whether currently exempt from property taxes or not, would be subject to a TUF. This includes the University of Oregon, as well as other state and federal property. The fact that all property users in the city would contribute their share increases the fairness of the TUF as a way to cover costs of the transportation system. The TUF revenue is also very flexible and, unlike a motor fuel tax, can be used for off-street bicycle paths and other off-street uses because it does not fall under the constitutional provision limiting its use to roads only. In initial discussions, some members questioned whether a transportation utility fee would be somewhat regressive because low income people purchase less and use the transportation system less. However, people with higher disposal income typicallypurchase more goods and services, and so would pay more of the pass-through of a commercial and retail transportation utility fee. Also, the fee amount for apartment residents typically is less than that paid by residents of single-family homes, because surveys of apartment dwellers show they typically use the transportation system less. 17