Item C: Strategies for Transportation Funding

Home Browse Search

(Excerpted from the Transportation Funding System Interim Report, Pages 18-26, Prepared by the Eugene Budget Committee Citizen Subcommittee, Dated June 2001) SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION - TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ALTERNATIVES In the September 29 meeting, the subcommittee adopted guiding principles for their work and endorsed the idea of bringing to the Council a package proposal or combination of funding alternatives, rather than a single alternative. The Guiding Principles were intended to provide a set of criteria against which various alternative revenue options could be evaluated and compared. Additionally, the subcommittee requested a copy of all council policies and goals, either adopted or currently proposed, which would be relevant to their consideration of transportation funding options. Those policies and goals considered are included in this report as Appendix G. Staff next offered for consideration a broad-based Guiding Principals list of potential funding sources which might be Diversification of Revenue Sources used by the City to generate additional revenue for An overall funding strategy for transportation system service needs. This list transportation system service needs included over 20 potential revenue sources in should include multiple funding broad categories ranging from assessment sources, which will adequately mechanisms, property tax-based options, various address the full range of identified forms of excise taxes, utility/user fees, as well as transportation system service needs. more traditional general municipal revenue Consistency with Goals and Policies sources (see Funding Alternatives for All proposals for sources and uses of Transportation System Needs, Appendix H). funds, overall funding strategies and Additional revenue alternatives were suggested by other subcommittee products should subcommittee members in the course of be consistent with adopted City subsequent discussions. The subcommittee Council Goals and City policies. directed staff to provide further analysis on several Legal Defensibility alternatives, listed below: The City must have clear and Property taxes (both local option ÿ incontrovertible authority and ability levy and general obligation bonds) under state and federal statutes to Expanded assessment ÿ implement the proposed revenue practices/local improvement sources and uses. districts Financial Feasibility Broadened use of systems ÿ Funding sources must be able to development charges (SDCs) produce timely, adequate revenue Motor fuel tax on distributors ÿ streams with a high degree of long- (including sales outside city) term sustainability. Transportation utility fee ÿ Politically Supportable Street improvement fee ÿ An overall funding strategy for transportation system service needs Staff prepared analyses, attached as Appendix I, must be deemed politically acceptable on the alternatives selected by the subcommittee. by both the City Council and the These were presented and discussed at the general public in terms of appropriate November 13 and December 11 meetings. uses of public resources, general fairness to system users, and level of acceptance for funding proposals. The funding strategy and specific revenue sources must also be easily understood by citizens and have a direct relationship to specific community transportation system service needs.