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

Home Browse Search

The constitutional limitation referred to earlier does apply to a local motor fuel tax, such that all revenue raised from a motor fuel tax may only be spent within the road rights-of-way. Since the motor fuel tax is paid by users of motor vehicles, this dedication of revenue from motor fuel taxes seems appropriate. Like the transportation utility fee, the motor fuel tax will also capture revenue from non-residents. Several funding scenarios involving combinations of the transportation utility fee, motor fuel tax and G.O. bonds were reviewed and discussed by the subcommittee at the February 12 meeting. A preliminary target of net revenue to be generated was established at $9 millionThe preferred funding . package follows: Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax A would be expected to produce net revenue of approximately $1.3 two-cent per gallon tax million per year. All motor fuel tax revenue is restricted to activities related to the road rights-of- way. Bicycle paths and other off-street activities could not be funded from this source. Transportation Utility Fee The remaining $7.7 million of the total funding target could be raised with a TUF. Per household residential fee levels would be about $4 per month. The subcommittee agreed that the most effective transportation funding package would . These measures are consist of a transportation utility fee and a motor vehicle fuel tax capable of raising adequate levels of revenue and most closely conform to the subcommittee?s guiding principles. The subcommittee agreed that the most effectivetransportationfunding package would consist of a transportationutility fee and a motor vehicle fuel tax. These measures are capable of raising adequate levels of revenue and most closely conform to the subcommittee?s guiding principles. A revised transportation service system financial forecast was prepared showing the effects of the proposed new funding package on the six-year outlook for the Road Fund. That forecast is included as Appendix J. Below are listed the individual revenue options which were raised and/or considered, along with salient points based on subcommittee discussion and the December survey results. The Compiled Member from the December survey are attached as Appendix F. SurveyResults Assessments Broadened Assessment Practices/Local Improvement Districts C Subcommittee members suggested that this funding option could perhaps be part of a combination of solutions for funding street improvement projects in neighborhoods, along with matching grant programs and other sources. Similar to the street improvementfee concept, this approach would be focused on improving currently unimproved streets to urban standards. However, the December survey showed that this alternative was seen as having quite a low likelihood of being politically supported in the community. Broadened Use of Systems Development Charges C Subcommittee members noted that this option would not be available for preservation projects, but did acknowledge the equity in having SDCs pay for improving capacity rather than funding those improvements from the Road Fund. One concern expressed was that a recommendation to 18