Item B: Strategies for Long-Term Transportation Needs

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT H IL);celptedfrom the Ihmsportation Funding System JnJerim Report. Pages J 8-26. Prepared by rhe Eugene Budget COIllniirtee Citizen Subcommittee, Dated June 2(01) SUBCOMMITTEE IHSCUSSION - TRANSPORTATION FUNDING A.LTEH.NATlVES Tn the September 29 meeting, the subcommittee adopted guiding principles for their work and endorsed the idea of bringing to the Council a package proposal or combination offunding alternatives, rather than a single alternative. The Guiding Principles were intended to provide a set of criteria against which various alternative revenue options conld be evaluated and compared. .. AdditionaHy, the subcommittee requested a copy of all council policies and goals, either adopted or currently proposed, which "iOuld be re1cvant to their consideration of transportation funding options. Thos{~ policies and goals considered are included in this repO!i as Appendix G. Staff next offered for consideration a broad-based list ofpotentiaJ funding sources "vhich might be llsed by the City to generate additional revenue for transportation system service needs. This list included over 20 potential revenue sources in broad categories ranging from assessment mechanisms, property tax-based options, various forms of excise taxes, utilityh.lser fees, as well as more traditional general municipal revenue sources (see l;'undin.~~ _Alternatives .f(J}" Transportation Systt'm Needs, Appendix H). Additional revenue alternatives were suggested by subcommittee mernbers in the course of subsequent discussions. The subcomrnittee directed staff to provide flirther analysis on several alternatives, listed below: .. Property taxes (both local option levy and general obligation bonds) . Expanded assessment practices/local improvement dlstncts .. Broadened use of systems development charges (SDCs) . l\10tor fuel tax on distributors (including sales outside city) .. Transportation utility fee . Str{~et improvement tee Staff prepared analyses, attached ast\ppendix L on the alternatives selected by the subcommittee. These were presented and discussed at the November 13 and December II meetings. G uidingPrindpals Diversification of Revenue Sources An overall funding strategy for transportation system service needs should include multiple funding sources, \vhich will adequately address the fun range of identified transpotiation systern service needs. Consistency wiih Goals and Policies All proposals lor sources and uses of timds, overall funding strategies and other subcommittee products should be consistent v,Iith adopted City Council Goals and City policies. Legal Defensibility The City must bav{~ dear and incontrovertible authority and ability under state and federal statutes to implement the proposed revenue sources and uses. Financial Peas ihiHty Funding sources must be able to produce timely, adequ3te t'{~venue streams with a high degree of long- tent) sustainability. Politically Supportable An overall funding strategy for transportation system service needs must be deemed politicaHy acceptable by both the City Council and the general public in terms of appropriate uses ofpublic resources, general fairness to system users. and level of acceptance for funding proposals. The iimding strakgy and specific revenue sources must also be easily understood by citizens and have a direct relationship to specific community transportation system service needs.