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

Home Browse Search

include improvements to streets within the Urban Growth Boundary and under County jurisdiction in the City?s transportation SDC could become another item of dispute or contention with the County. The County has not yet elected to pursue a proposal to levy a transportation SDC for similarly planned County-funded improvementswithin the Urban Growth Boundary. Members also voiced that encouraging out-of-city development may be a poor choice in light of the potential implications of Measure 7 for development of county tracts. The December survey revealed that members saw this alternative as providing for diversification of revenue sources, being consistent with City goalsand policies, and being legally defensible. However, concern was expressed about political supportability and that it was limited to new improvements that are capacity oriented (arterials/collectors). Staff reportedthat the City Roads Advisory Committee (RAC) is currently reviewing the City?s transportation system development charge methodology. A recommendation under consideration by the RAC may result in implementation of a reimbursement component to the transportation system development charge to cover costs that new development impose upon the existing road system. Property Taxes General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds Backed by a Property Tax Levy C Subcommittee members expressed concern as to whether the City could generate voter support for a G.O. Bond or Local Option Levy, given the recent failure of the police and fire station ballot measures. It was also noted that renewal of the Library operating levy in two years would create competition on the ballot for a transportation funding tax levy. This concern was countered with the belief that voteropposition could be overcome by identifying specific improvements that would benefit residents in broad geographic areas and also by limiting the increase in the debt tax levy to specific amount. This is similar to the funding approach used by the City of Salem. The subcommittee also acknowledged that the City was very conservative in its debt practices and could afford to ?leverage up? slightly for some priority funding issues. Another concern voiced by the subcommittee members was that only property owners would be responsible for paying for this funding, and not necessarily all users of the transportation system. Several subcommittee members expressed doubt as to whether G.O. bonds represented a stable, long- term funding source. The opinion was also expressed that the tax levy mechanism did not lend itself well to funding what essentially is a utility need. The subcommitteecontinued to examine this alternative, though the December survey showed that this alternative was rated as having a low likelihood of being political feasible. The subcommittee agreed that, regardless of the solution recommended, the Council would have a major task in educating the community about the importance of the need for street improvements. While this option was one of three that made it to the final stages of discussion for a potential funding package, it was the ultimate conclusion of the subcommittee that the City shouldnot resort to G.O. bonds to resolveits transportation funding needs. The six subcommittee respondents assigned a low likelihood of political supportability to this revenue alternative. Local Option Property Tax Levy (LOL) C The subcommittee reiteratedconcern that, as with G.O. bonds, the City might find it difficult to 19