Item B: Strategies for Long-Term Transportation Needs

Home Browse Search

being consisknt \vith City goals and policies, and being legally defensible. However, concern was expressed about political supportabi iity and that it was limited to ne\v improvements that are capacity miented (arterials/collectors). Staff reported that th<~ City Roads Advisory Committee (RAe) is currently reviewing the City's transportation system development charge methodology. A recommendation under consideration by the RAC may result in implementation of a reimbursement component to the transportation system development charge to cover costs that new development impose upon the existing road system. Propertv Taxes · General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds R.lcked by .1 Property Tax Levy Subcommittee members expressed concern as to whether the City could generate voter support for a Ci .0. Bond or Local Option Levy, given the re('ent i'ail ure of the police and fire station ballot measures. it was also noted that renewal of the Library operating levy in two years would create competition on the banot for a transportation funding tax levy. This concern was countered '8ith the belief that voter opposition could be overcome by identifying specific improvements that would benefit residents in broad geographic areas and also by limiting the increase in the debt tax levy to specific amount. This is similar to the funding approach used by the City of Salem. The subcommittee also acknowledged that the City was very conservative in i1$ debt practices and could afford to "leverage up" slightly for some priority funding issues. Another concern voiced by the subcommittee members was that only propeli}' owners would be responsible for paying for this funding, and not necessarily aU users of the transportation system. Several subcommittee members expressed doubt as to \vhether G.O. bonds represented a stable, long-term funding source. The opinion was a.lso expressed that the tax levy mechanism did not lend itself \vell to funding what essentially is a utility need. The subcommittee continued to examine this alternative, though the Decernber survey showed that this alterna!ive was rakd as having a low likelihood of being political feasible. The subcommittee agreed that, regardless of the solution recommended, the Council 'vvou!d have a major task in educating tbe community about the impclliance ofthe need for street improvements. While this option was one of three that made it to the final stages of discussion f()r a potential funding package, i; was the ultimate conclusion of the subcommittee ;hat the City should not resort to G.O. bonds to resolve its transportation funding needs. The six subcommittee respondents assigned a low likelihood of political supportability to this revenue alternative. LOC.I! Option Property Tax Levy (LOL) The subcommittee reiterated concern that, as with G.O. bonds, the City might find it difficult to generate voter support fi)r this option, given the competition for other levy-funded needs, sucb as the Library operating levy. In t~lct, many of the same concerns were raised around this potential funding option as for a G.O. bond levy. As with ;he G.O. bond option, doubt was e~;pressed as to whether an 1.01. fits the criteria as a sta hie, long-term funding source. Five of six respondents assigned a Jow likelihood of political feasibility to the LOL altemative, Excise Tg~~? Business Tax on Fuel Distribution (Outside City Limits) At the request of the ~)ubcommittee" this option was identified for further staff analysis. The main question to be explored was whether or not the City can legaHy impose a tax on motor vehide fuel distributors ti}r sales of motor vehicle fuel to customers located outside the legal city limits. Lega! counsel's opinion was that, although the City can tax sales of fuel that occur inside its lirnits, it cannot tax sales that occur outside its limits. Given that the City's authority to tax is