Laserfiche WebLink
Overthe course of several meetings, the subcommittee discussedthe basis for and possible <br />implementation of a transportation utility fee. As discussed, a simple Eugene TUF would be <br />based on the actual use made of property. Property use categories would be the same or very <br />similar to the categories used in the City?s Transportation SDC methodology. Each property use <br />category would be assigned a trip generation rate, using the Institute of Transportation <br />Engineers? For non-residential property uses, this trip generation rate <br /> Trip Generation Manual. <br />is usually expressed as a number of trips per 1,000 square feet, or an equivalent unit of measure. <br />The trip rate would be multiplied by the number of units, and that product would be multiplied <br />by the fee per trip to generate the utility fee for a particular property. Residential rates would be <br />per dwelling unit. TUF revenue would be used for operation, maintenance and preservation, not <br />capacity related projects. <br />Street Improvement Fee <br />C <br />The focus of this option was directed towards addressing the unimproved transportation network. <br />The concept was to establish a fee that all owners adjacent to unimproved streets would pay for a <br />period of time (ten years), with the funds to be used to improve streets in a priority order during a <br />specified period of time. The subcommittee was informed that the Council Subcommittee on <br />Street Improvement Financing had explored this concept, which was subsequently presented to <br />the council as part of that subcommittee?s report. Council concluded that the approach was one <br />they did not wish to pursue. Since this funding option does not address the preservation and <br />maintenanceneeds of the transportation systemand the council has not chosen to pursue this <br />option, the subcommittee discontinued any further review of this alternative.The December <br />survey showed that this option was mediumto low in the area of financially feasibility. The <br />subcommittee indicated its opposition to this alternativeby a 5:2 count. <br />Municipal Sticker Fee (Local Vehicle Public Parking Permit) <br />C <br />This idea, introduced by a subcommittee member based on practice in other municipalities, was a <br />proposal to have a municipal ?sticker? attached to a vehicle that would give the owner the <br />privilege of parking in areas associated with city facilities, such as the Library parking lot. Staff <br />analysis of two sample cities showed that alternative was more like a city vehicle registration <br />requirement, which is not permitted under Oregon state law, rather than an optional parking <br />sticker program. <br />Tolls <br />C <br />This funding source generated very little discussion from the subcommittee.While some <br />members liked the idea of capturing toll money from commuters driving in from outside the city, <br />there was a sense that the mechanism would be too much of a stretch in terms of public opinion <br />at this time. This alternative received lower ratings in the subcommittee survey and no <br />recommendation for further staff analysis. <br />Fees to Compensate for Dedicated Use of Traffic Lanes for Transit Purposes <br />C <br />This potential funding source also generated little discussion from the subcommittee. The <br />dedicated lane fee was viewed as somewhat contrary to the City?s goal of supporting transit. It <br />also received lower ratings in the subcommittee survey and no recommendation for further staff <br />analysis. <br />Employer Payroll Tax <br />C <br />This general municipal revenue source received little discussion from the subcommittee, and <br />staff received no direction for further analysis of this option. <br />23 <br />