Item B: Strategies for Long-Term Transportation Needs

Home Browse Search

Legal Authority and Restrictions on Use (continued) Incidence (who pays'!) Fairness/Equit)' Issues Assessment of Financial Stability and Political Feasibility Potential Economic Impacts An analysis of the legal aspects ofa TI1'F done by the Lane Council of Govemments in 1998 concludes that, in order to avoid being classified as an assessment, a TUF should be based l..'Pon actual use of the road system and not be enforced by a lien, The resulting benefit should be defined in terms of the resident using maintained streets rather than an actual benefit to that property ovmer and the property itself. ievenue should be restricted to maintaining the street system rather than new improvements. An developed and occupied properties are nomlally subject to the fee. The recipient of the utility account billing is liable for payment; this is assumed to be the occupant or the representative of the occ.upant. Because the fee is billed to com...'1l.ercial and retail property, some of the costs of the fee will likelY be recovered from the customers of those businesses. Many customers reside outside the city, but nevertheless would indirectly contribute to the costs ofoperntion of the city's transportation system in this manner. Because a TIJF is based on the principles of proportionality and universality, the fee can be equitable in distributing the share of costs of the transportation system among all those who use it according to an estimate of their w..are of use. If exclusions were granted to a group of property users then costs \vould be sbifted and the equity of the fee would be compromised. A TI}F is not usually described as progressive or regressive in itself because it is a utility fee and is not income~based. Charging a fee based in part upon the occupant's income would likely violate the shareoof-use basis of the TUF. However, ulclusion oflimited deferrals or discounts based on economic hardship might bring an element of progressivity to the fee structure while not violating its basis. Financially, TUFs are exceptionally stable because they are a fee for service targeted to raise a specific net amount of revenue. Variations of actual from projected revenues are normally very small. A city may adopt a TUF by council action or by placing it on a city ballot. Oregon cities v,rjth TUFs have aU implemented the fee structures by ordinance rather than by a vote, and typically adjust the target revenue and actual fee levels annually by resolution or administrative action. Development of the TUF methodologies by Oregon cities has often involved a range of community representatives; this has helped ensured public understanding and support of the 'fUF. Reports are that Oregon cities with TUFs have found it to be quite well accepted by their communities as a means to fund city transportation systems. Property uses generating heavy traffic will feel the greatest impact, proportionate to their use of the transportation system. Tbe actual fee to be paid will depend ont~e revenue to be raised and the fee's methodology. The level of the fee v.liB likely not affect business activity, however., and should be considered in comparison to the potential economic effects of deterioration of the transportation system. No Oregon city "vith a TUf has reported adverse economic consequences stemming from it. On the other hand, because net fee revenues are mvested in the transportation system, economic activity is enhanced as the transportation is mai."ltained and improved. It is likely that businesses will pass on some or all of their TUF costs to their customers, just as other business costs are normally passed on. In that ma.."1Y people from outside the city shop and work in Eugene, a l1JF may indirectly increase their contribution to the cost oft...~e transportation system. Il6