Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The focus of this option 'vvas directed tcn:vards addressing the unimproved transportation network. <br />The concept was to establish a fee that all movners adjacent to unimproved streets 'vvould pay J(X a <br />period of time (ten years), with the thnds to be used to improve streets in a priority order during a <br />specified period of time, The subcommittee was informed that the Council Subcommittee on <br />Street Improvement Financing had explored this concept, which vv'as subsequently presented to <br />the council as part of that subcommittee's report. Council concluded that the approach was one <br />they did not wish to pursue. Since this funding option does not address the preservation and <br />maintenance needs of the transportation system and the council has not chosen to pursue this <br />option, the subcommittee discontinued any further review oftllis alternative. The December <br />survey showed that this option was medium to low in the area of financially feasibility. The <br />subcommittee indicated its opposition to this alternative by a 5:2 count. <br /> <br />Municipal Stkker Fcc (Local Vchiclcl'ublie Parking Permit) <br />This idea, introduced by a subcommittee member based on practice in other municipalities, ,vas a <br />proposal to have a municipal "sticker" attached to a vehicle that would give the owner the <br />privilege of parking in areas associated with city facilities, such as the Library parking lot. Staff <br />analysis of two sample cities showed that altemative was more like a city vehicle registration <br />requirement which is not permitted under Oregon state la'vv, rather than an optional parking <br />sticker program, <br /> <br />Tolls <br />This funding source generated very little discussion from the subcommittee. While some <br />members liked the idea of capturing ton rf!o!Jey ii-om commuters driv ing in from outside the city, <br />there was a sense that the mechanism would be too much of a stretch in terms of public opinion at <br />this time. This alternative received lower ratings in the subcommittee survey and no <br />recommendation for further staff analysis. <br /> <br />~ Fees to Compensate for Dedicated Use of Traffic Lanes for Transit Purposes <br />This potential funding source also generated little discussion from the subcommittee. The <br />dedicated Jane tee was vie\ved as some'vvhat contrary to the City's goal of supPOliing transit. It <br />also received lower ratings in the subcommittee survey and no recommendation for further staff <br />analysis. <br /> <br />Employer Payroll Tax <br />This general municipal revenue source received. little discussion from the .subcommittee, and staff <br />received no direction for tbrther analysis of this option. <br />