Item C: Strategies for Transportation Funding

Home Browse Search

voiced around the vehicle registration fee was that, by State law, the City would be reliant on Lane County to levy the fee. Additionally, neither of 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 further work on 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 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-exempt property, 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 rating for political supportability. Nevertheless, by a 6:1 count, members chose to pursue discussions on the TUF. A Summary of Oregon Transportation In early polls of members, the TUF and Utility Fees is included in this report as Appendix L. 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 pointed out that the fee could be structured to reduce somewhat any perceived regressiveness. The point was also made that the community may accept use of TUF revenues for transportation system operational needs because the TUF is a utility fee based on use of the system, and operation and maintenance of the existing system are clearly necessary. Community acceptance of the fairness of other utility fees was noted in discussions. Over the course of several meetings, the subcommittee discussed the basis for and possible implementation of a transportation utility fee. As discussed, a simple Eugene TUF would be based on the actual use made of property. Property use categories would be the same or very similar to the categories used in the City’s Transportation SDC methodology. Each property use category would be assigned a trip generation rate, using the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual. For non-residential property uses, this trip generation rate is usually expressed as a number of trips per 1,000 square feet, or an equivalent unit of measure. The trip rate would be multiplied by the number of units, and that product would be multiplied by the fee per trip to generate the utility fee for a particular property. Residential rates would be per dwelling unit. TUF revenue would be used for operation, maintenance and preservation, not capacity related projects. Street Improvement Fee