Item B: Strategies for Long-Term Transportation Needs

Home Browse Search

voiced around the vehicle registration fee was that, by State la\v, the CilY would be reliant on Lane County to levy the fee. Additionally, neitber of these options \vere perceived to address the issue of out-of-city residents who use Eugene's transpoliation system. Neither alternative was seen as poiitically feasible. Survey results showed subcommittee opposition to further work on the motor vehicle excise tax by a 6: 1 margin, and opposition by a 5:2 count to further consideration ofthe vehicle registmtion fee. IJseriUtilitv Fees Transportation OtHity Fee Subcommittee members indicated early interest in this option. Some members were particularly interested if the focus ofthe utility fee was on preservation and reconstruction rather than primarily for "extras," such as street trees and traffic calming. Members expressed support f<x the f(ict that the fee would assess revenue for people \YhO were driving in from out of town for work or to do business. Tbere was also specific support for the idea of maintaining the transpOltation system through the cost of driving a car. The tact that users of a!l property, including the University of Oregon and other tax~exempt property, will contribute their share under a TUF was also identified as an attractive feature of the TUF, The subcommittee recommended not using '''ELf'' (Eugene Livability Fee) or OIher "cute" names for this fee, arguing instead for a simple descriptor of" transportation utility fee." In the December survey, members gave the transportation utility fee a high likelihood of being consistent \",ith goals of divers! fying revenue sources, being legally defensible and financially feasible. fvlembers assigned a 10\1/ rating for political supportability. Nn'ertheless, by a 6: 1 COllnt, members chose to pursue discussions on the TUF. A Sumnhuy afOregon Transportation Utility Fees is included in this report as Appendix L. In early polls or members, the TVI" and the motor vehicle fuel tax were the only options which recei\"ed ma.iorit), support. Members said it would be helpful to illustrate some of the initial projects that would be funded by the utility fee so citizens would be able to see \vhat services the fee would provide. Members also noted that, based on initial yield estimates, this revenue option on its own could potential1y soll/e the City's transportation funding shortfall. Some members expressed concern that the fee was, or might be perceived as, regressive. Other mernbers opined that it was not regressive but, instead, was a true user ke based on the estimated use of the transportation system. ft was also pointed out that the fee co uld be structured to reduce sornewhat any perceived regressiveness. The poim was also made that the community may accept use ofTUF revenues for transportation system operational needs because the TUF is a utility fee based on use of the system, and operation and maintenance of tile existing system are clearly necessary. Community acceptance of the f:aimess of other utility fees was noted in discussions. Over the course of several meetings, the subcommittee discussed the basis for and possible impkmentation of a transportation utility fee. As discussed, a simple Eugene TUF \.<,:ould be based on the actual use made of property. Property use categories would be the same or very similar to the categories used in the City's Transportation SDC methodology. Each property use category v,ould be assigned a trip generation rate, using the I nstitute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation AIanual. For non-residential propelty uses, this trip generation rate is usually expressed as a nutnber of trips per 1,000 square feet, or an equivalent unit of meaSllr{~. The trip rate \vould be multiplied by the number of units, and that product would be multiplied by the fee per trip to generate the utility fee for a particular property. Residential rates would be per dwelling unit TUF revenue \vould be lIsed for operation, maintenance and preservation, not capacity related projects. Stred Improvement Fce