Item B: Strategies for Long-Term Transportation Needs

Home Browse Search

G.O. bonds w{~re revie\ved and discussed by the subcommlttee at the February 12 meeting. A preliminary target of net revenue to be generated was established at S9 million. The preferred fundinQ package f()Jlovis: ,~ M9.!!;~LY~hicle Fuel Tax A two~cent per gallon tllX would be expected to produce net revenue of approximately $ t.3 million per year. All motor filel 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 TLJF. Per household residential fee levels would be about S4 per month. The subcommittee agreed that tbe 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 conh.mn 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 fUe! tax. These measures are capable of raising adequate levels of revenue and most closely conform to the subcommittee's guiding principles. A revised transportation serv ice system financial {()recas t was prepared showing the effects ofthe proposed new fi.ll1ding package on the six-year outlook for the Road Fund. That f~')recast is included as Appendix J. Below are listed the individual revenue options which \vere raised and/or considered. along with salient point> based on subcommittee discussion and the December survey results. The Compiled z\Jernber Surve,V Results from the December survey are attached a:, Appendix F. Assessments Broudened AsS(~ssm(~nt I'nll:tices!Lo(:~ll 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 i.npt'Overnent fee concept, tbis approach would be focused on improving cun-ently unimproved streets to urban standards. However, the December survey shO\ved that this alternative \",as seen as having quite a low likelihood of being politicaHy supported in tbe community. Broudencd Use of Syskms Hevcloprnent Charges Subcommittee members noted that this option \vould not be available for preservation projects, but did acknowledge the equity in having SDCs pay for irnproving capacity rather tban funding those improvements from thl: Road Fund. One concern expressed was that a recommendation to include improvements to streets witbin the Urban Gnw,1h Boundary and under County jurisdiction in the City's transportation SDC could become another item of dispute or contention \vith the County. The Coun,)' has not yet elected to pursue a proposal to levy a transportation SDC for similarly planned County-funded improvements \vithin the Urban Growth Boundary. Members also voiced that encouraging out-orcity dev{~lopmeni 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 ,his alternative as prov iding for di ve!'.~ificati(>n of r(~venue sources,