My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item C: Strategies for Transportation Funding
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2006
>
CC Agenda - 02/15/06 WS
>
Item C: Strategies for Transportation Funding
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 10:24:51 AM
Creation date
2/10/2006 9:51:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
2/15/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
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 />maintenance needs of the transportation system and 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 medium to low in the area of financially feasibility. The <br />subcommittee indicated its opposition to this alternative by a 5:2 count. <br />Municipal Sticker Fee (Local Vehicle Public Parking Permit) <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 />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 at <br />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 />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 />This general municipal revenue source received little discussion from the subcommittee, and staff <br />received no direction for further analysis of this option. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.