Item C: Strategies for Transportation Funding

Home Browse Search

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 two-cent per gallon tax A would be expected to produce net revenue of approximately $1.3 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 most effective transportation funding package would The subcommittee agreed that consist of a transportation utility 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. The subcommittee agreed that the most effective transportation funding package would consist of a transportation utility 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 Survey Results from the December survey are attached as Appendix F. Assessments Broadened Assessment Practices/Local Improvement Districts 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 improvement fee 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 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 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 improvements within 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,