Item B: Strategies for Long-Term Transportation Needs

Home Browse Search

confIned within its t(~rritorial boundaries, the subcommittee saw essentially no distinction between this and a local option motor fuel tax, which is discussed in the next section. Local Option Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Subcommittee members suggested that a two-to-three cent motor vehick fuel tax (gas tax) could be a viable second funding source along with a transportation utility tee. It was noted that, if one of the goals is to assess the cost of the system to syskm users, then an argument in support of the gas tax is that it \.\;OU ld be as sessed at the poin t of purchase on those who 9_b!;!9_~~ to drive. ~1embers debated whether the revenues from a gas tax could potentially be undermined by market flight Member Howie Bonnett conducted a survey oflocal gas prices and t~)und a several-cent difference in retail gasoline prices in a limited geographic section of town--indicating that a two-to-three cent gas ta:< would probably not have much impact on consumer choices around gas purchases. J'y1embers agreed with tbis conclusion. On multiple occasions, members discussed tbe desirability of coordinating with Springfield witb regard to that ciiY's consideration of and deliberations around a motor vehide file 1 tax. Members noted that the last time the council had considered the option of a gas tax was in ) 995, during discussions related to stomnvater funding and associated impacts of the transportation system on stonnwater quality Concern was expressed by the subcommittee that the Legislature might take another run at a statewide gas tax increase. A Swmnary a/Oregon Locaf AIotor Vehicle Fuel Taxes is induded in this repon as Appendix K. In early pons of members, the TUF and the mojoI' vehicle fuel tax ,,,'ere the only options which received majority support. Parking Tax While the parking tax was viewed by the subcommittee as having some potential in promoting City land llse goals, it was noted that prev ious attempts by the City to change development choices and driver behavior through parking policy were not successful. It "vas noted that parking spaces are not as directly tied to the use of the tmnsportation system as would be a transportation utility fee based on trip rates. For example, a ma:llrbduring use Inay have the same numbers of spaces as a retail use but a much lower trip rate and, therefore, a ]ov>,er use of the transportation system. The December survey showed that the parking tax alternative was :;een as having a lo'vv likelihood of being financially feasible and an even lower likelihood of being politica1iy acceptable to the community. In December, members' surveys indicated by a 5:2 margin tbat the idea should be dropped, and stafl was directed to do no further analysis on this revenue option. Carbon-based Fuel Tax Wbile both this and the Parking Tax timding option generated some discussion by the subcommittee, the opinion \vas expressed that it might be more appropriate for the council to addre:;s the feasibil ity and appropriateness of either a cm-bon-based fuel tax or the parking tax, rather than for the subcommittee to do so. Proponents f\)r the carbon tax voiced support on the basis ihat tbis is one of the few options that most directly targt~ts the users oftbe transportation system. It was also pointed out, however, that unless the City \vcre willing to apply the carbon- based tax 10 hearing fuels, there '"vollld be very EttIe distinction between it and a motor vehicle fuel tax. Ultimately, no direction was given lor fllliher analysis of this option. A. majority or members felt tbat the carbon-based fuel tax was not very financially feasible nor pol itically supportable and indicated by a 5:2 margin that it should not be explored further. The alternative was dropped at that point. Motor Vehicle Excise Tax Vehicle Registration J.'ees Both ofthese revenue options generated little interest by the subcommittee. The primary concern