Item B: Strategies for Long-Term Transportation Needs

Home Browse Search

Estimated Revenue Yield, Administration and Enforcement Costs (continued) Legal Authority and Restrictions on Use To administer such a TUF, the city ",ill need an estimated six rYE in the first year to set up and implement the program. Once the TUF is up and operating, staffing can be reduced to an estimated 25 FIE. In addition, EWEB will need to be paid an estimated $0.35 per account per month f'Or billing costs. With these assumptions, total TUF ad.'11inistrative costs are estimated to be about $685,000 for the fIrst year, and about $407,000 per year thereafter (in current year dollars), A more detailed estimate of administrative costs will be done if the TIJF is moved forward for council consideration. Net revenues from a $10 million gross TOP would be about $9.6 million under these assumptions. An incorporated city may adopt a TIJ'"F under its home~ruJe authority and powers granted in the City Charter. No specific authorization by statute is necessary. To avoid being classified as a tax or a special assessment and thus found invalid, a TUF must be carefully structured. Not only should the methodology of the fee be a concern, but also the procedures for its application. The city attorney has reviewed the TIJF and has advised as follows. . A TUF based on an estimate of trip-generation based on property use is accepted by the Oregon courts. This is demonstrated in the 1990's case when Medford's TUF was unsuccessfully challenged based on the different rates Mediord charges for various property uses. The lTE Trip Generation Manual was and is still the basis for Medford's rates. At the Circuit Court level and Court of Appeals level, the Cou..'ts agreed \"it~ Medford's argument that rates based Oll the lTE Manual are a valid basis for distinguishing bet\veen different categories of use. The ITE ,Manual has been tested in litigation and been accepted by courts allover the country. . A TUF is not a tax upon property and therefore is not subject to Measure 5 or Measure 50 limitations. Rather, it is a fee imposed upon occupancy. In Roseburg Schelo! DiFtri~:t Y.....Ci1:y...Df~hurg, 316 OR 374 (1993), the Oregon Supreme Court held that the Roseburg storm drainage utility fee was not a tax on property because it was imposed on occupants of property and not against property as a direct consequence of ownership of property. Vacant property should not be subject to the 11)F. . Courts will probably regard a TUF as a fee so long as the amount of the fee is tied to the fee-payer's use of the transportation system, for instance based on the ITE fyfanual, and the revenue is used to support the ci(}"s transportation system. . It is an open question as to whether the University of Oregon would be subject to the 'llJF. An 1987 Attorney General's opinion said that the Southern Oregon State College was exempt from Ashland's TUF under the general immunity of state property from taxes, However, under the subsequent Roseburg decision, the reasoning of the Attorney General's Opinion concerning SOSC's immunity is in question, (In fact, Southern Oregon University now pays the TUF to the City of Ashland). . TUF proceeds should not be used for capita! improvements that are othen'irise funded by SDC's, because that would undennine the basis for the SDC calculations. For similar reasons, TUE revenue should not be used for projects t...'u1t are financed tltrough special assessments. . Since a TUF is not a tax on property, delinquent accounts should not automatically become a lien on property, Enforcement can be achieved as Vvith other utility fees, tr..:rough shut off of the water utility, 115