Item B: Strategies for Long-Term Transportation Needs

Home Browse Search

1n D(~cember, individual subcommittee members also completed a survey in which they evaluated the various revenue alternatives against the subcommittee's Guiding Principles. l'vlembers were asked if each alternative merited further disctlssion. The survey results were prov ided to the subcommittee. After further discussions,. the subcommittee took stra'w polls on five revenue alternatives that had received considerable member attention. The results were as foUows: SubcoImnitke..S..l!:g~y Poll Results, Revenue I\.H~n!~~j'yes (J 211 1/(0) Local Option Levy 7:0 opposed General Obligation Bonds 6: I opposed Parking Tax 5:2 opposed Fuel Tax on Distributors 4:3 in favor Transportation Utility Fee 6: 1 in favor Staff continued to develop analyse:; and provide information as the subc:ommiHee members proceeded with their considerations of revenue alternatives. The alternative for a motor fuel tax on distributor sales outside the city \vas tound not to be allowable under SL'1te law, so a local motor fuel tax was discussed instead, Tn the Januaty 29 meeting, the transportation utility fce continued to be tbe revenue alternative with The highest level of member support. A local motor fuel tax also received majority support. Staff were asked to prepare funding scenarios incorporating combinations of a transportation utility tce, a motor fhel lax and G.O. bonds. The remaining revenue alternatives were not discussed further. Consensus 'was reached that all residents and visitors, whether motor vehicle drivers or non-drivers, have an impOli<lOt stake in maintaining the City's transportation infrastructure. Even non-drivers bave mail delivered and require access to mass transit, city bicycle lanes and off~street bike paths. Whether walking to visit friends, bicycling to work, driving to tbe doctor's office, or traveling by bus to school, everY()n~ dept~nds on The city transportation network and should rightly contribute to its upkeep. The subcommittee 'vVas interested in revenue alternatives that '.'>'Ould result in non-resid.ents pay ing a share, along with city residents. A transportaTion utility fee fTUFi is applied universally and is an equitable revenue source to vv'hich all property users contribute according to their share of impact on the system. The fee paid by retail and commercial property users will he partially passed on to non-resident visitors shopping or working in the city. l....lJ property wiThin the city, '""hether currently exempt from property taxes or not. wonkl be subject to a TUF. This includes the lJniversity of Oregon, as well as otber stale and tederal property. The fact that all property users in the city \\iould contribute their share increases the fairness of the TUF as a way to cover costs of the transportation system. The TUF revenue is also vcry flexible and, unlike a motor fiJel tax, can be used for off-street bicycle paths and other off~street uses because it does not fall under the constitutional provision limiting its use to roads only. In iniTial disclJ.ssions, some rnember.s questioned whether a transpoliation utility tee would be sOfnewhat regressive because low income people purchase less and llse tbe transportation system less. However, people with higher disposal income typically purchase more goods and services, and so would pay more of the pass-through of a commercial and retail transportatiollutility fee. /\lso, the fe(~ amount for apa;iment residents typically is less than that paid by residents of single-family homes, because surveys of apartment dwellers show they typic:ally use the transpOJiation system less. The constitutional limitation refcrred to earlier does apply to a local motor fuel tax, such that aU revenue raised from a motor fuel tax may only be spent within the road rights-of-way. Since the motor fuel tax is paid by users of motor vehicles, this dedication of revenue from motor fuel taxes seems appropriate. Like The transportation utility fee, the motor fuel tax will also capture revenue frorn non-residents. Several funding scenarios involving cmnbinations of the transportation utility fee, motor fue! tax and