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

Home Browse Search

Carbon-based Fuel Tax C While both this and the Parking Tax funding option generated some discussion by the subcommittee, the opinionwas expressed that it might be more appropriate for the council to address the feasibility and appropriateness of either a carbon-based fuel tax or the parking tax, rather than for the subcommittee to do so. Proponents for the carbon tax voiced support on the basis that this is one of the few options that most directly targets the users of the transportation system.It was also pointed out, however, that unless the City were willing to apply the carbon- based tax to heating fuels, there would be very little distinction betweenit and a motor vehicle fuel tax. Ultimately, no direction was given for further analysis of this option. A majority of members felt that the carbon-based fuel tax was not very financially feasible nor politically supportable and indicated by a 5:2 margin that it should not be explored further. The alternative was dropped at that point. Motor Vehicle Excise Tax C Vehicle Registration Fees C Both of these revenue options generated little interest by the subcommittee.The primary concern voiced around the vehicle registration fee was that, by State law, the City would be reliant on Lane County to levy the fee. Additionally,neitherof these options were perceived to address the issue of out-of-city residents who use Eugene?s transportation system. Neither alternative was seen as politically feasible. Survey results showed subcommittee opposition to furtherworkon the motor vehicle excise tax by a 6:1 margin, and opposition by a 5:2 count to further consideration of the vehicle registration fee. User/Utility Fees Transportation Utility Fee C Subcommittee members indicated early interest in this option. Some members were particularly interested if the focus of the utility fee was on preservation and reconstruction rather than primarily for ?extras,? such as street trees and traffic calming. Members expressed support for the fact that the fee would assess revenue for people who were driving in from out of town for work or to do business. There was also specific support for the idea of maintaining the transportation system through the cost of driving a car. The fact that users of all property, including the University of Oregon and other tax-exemptproperty, will contribute their share under a TUF was also identified as an attractive feature of the TUF. The subcommittee recommended not using ?ELF? (Eugene Livability Fee) or other ?cute? names for this fee, arguing instead for a simple descriptor of ? transportation utility fee.? In the December survey, members gave the transportation utility fee a high likelihood of being consistent with goals of diversifying revenue sources, being legally defensible and financially feasible. Members assigned a low ratingfor political supportability. Nevertheless, by a 6:1 count, members chose to pursue discussions on the TUF. A Summary of Oregon Transportation is included in this report as Appendix L. Utility Fees In early polls of members, the TUF and the motor vehicle fuel tax were the only options which received majority support. Members said it would be helpful to illustrate some of the initial projects that would be funded by the utility fee so citizens would be able to see what services the fee would provide. Members also noted that, based on initial yield estimates, this revenue option on its own could potentially solve the City?s transportation funding shortfall. Some members expressed concern that the fee was, or might be perceived as, regressive. Other members opined that it was not regressive but, instead, was a true user fee based on the estimated use of the transportation system. It was also 21