Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Transportation System Maintenance Fee ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Transportation System Maintenance Fee Meeting Date: July 24, 2006 Agenda Item Number: B Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Kurt Corey www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5241 ISSUE STATEMENT The implementation of a local motor vehicle fuel tax in August 2003, together with the reimbursement component of the transportation systems development charge, has allowed the City to begin addressing the significant backlog of pavement preservation projects in Eugene. However, this backlog of needed repair work continues to grow. Additional funding is needed to reverse this trend and to do the repairs necessary to ensure the efficient and safe operation of the local transportation system. Additionally, the ongoing road operations and maintenance programs have experienced stagnant growth in funding from state revenues as well as the loss of historical county revenue sharing. As a result, the City’s Road Fund is projected to generate significant annual operating deficits beginning in FY08. This work session provides an opportunity for the council to discuss the potential implementation of a transportation system maintenance fee to address these unfunded needs in the City’s transportation service system. BACKGROUND In October 2001, the Citizen’s Subcommittee on Transportation System Funding presented its recommendation that the council implement a transportation funding package consisting of a combination local motor vehicle fuel tax and transportation system maintenance fee for the purpose of generating an additional $9 million annually to address the City’s critical transportation system funding needs. On December 9, 2002, the council approved an ordinance establishing a transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF). On January 27, 2003, a related transportation revenue measure, the local motor vehicle fuel tax (“fuel tax”), was approved by the council. On September 8, 2003, the council voted to repeal the TSMF ordinance, citing the recent repeal by Springfield City Council of that city’s TSMF and concerns about equity between the two cities, as well as concerns raised by the Eugene Chamber of Commerce about the structure and impact of the TSMF on Eugene businesses. The council also cited continued hope for collaborative solutions with partner agencies, with particular reference to upcoming discussions with the Lane Board of County Commissioners and other local officials. On September 26, 2005, the council reviewed and discussed the financial status and fund forecast for Eugene’s Road Fund. At that time, the council reviewed an illustrative list of program reductions and eliminations which would be required if a strategy of service reductions alone were employed to correct the structural deficiency between Road Fund revenues and expenditures and to eliminate the $2.0 L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060724\S060724B.doc million projected annual deficit. Based on that discussion, the council directed the City Manager to develop a FY07 Road Fund budget at the current service level and to bring back a proposal for a new revenue funding package which would not only address the projected ongoing operating deficit in street operations and maintenance but which would also generate additional revenue to be dedicated to the backlog of unfunded projects in the Pavement Preservation Program. On February 27, 2006, the council reviewed and discussed a number of potential revenue strategies to address these two categories of unmet funding needs, including consideration of a street lighting fee, a Eugene livability fee (ELF), a shift in funding for one-half of the street trees/median maintenance program from the Road Fund to the Stormwater Fund, and reestablishment of the previously-repealed transportation system maintenance fee. At that session, the council directed the City Manager to include in the FY07 Proposed Budget a shift in a portion of the funding for street trees/median maintenance to the Stormwater Fund and also directed the City Manager to bring back a proposal for reestablishing the previously repealed transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF) to address not only the projected ongoing operating deficits in Road Fund street operations and maintenance, but also to generate additional revenue to address the remaining annual funding gaps in the pavement and off-street bike path preservation programs. In the course of its FY07 budget deliberations, the Budget Committee added a one-time funding allocation of $1.5 million to the pavement preservation capital budget for FY07 to be focused on overlay projects for streets that would otherwise fall into the reconstruct category in a subsequent year. Pavement Preservations Accomplishments and Funding Status The 3-cent local fuel tax implemented by the council in August 2003 and raised to 5 cents in February 2005 is expected to generate revenue of nearly $3.6 million for FY06. Additional dedicated preservation project revenue from transportation reimbursement SDCs, from the three-year County/City OTIA III revenue sharing agreement and from other fund sources has allowed the City to complete nearly $7.5 million in street preservation project work since the implementation of the fuel tax and the transportation reimbursement SDC, with additional contracts in process. This year, over 17 lane miles of pavement repairs are scheduled, including the reconstruction of Hilyard Street. However, if the 2- cent fuel tax increase is allowed to sunset as of February 28, 2008, and the effect of that is combined with the expiration of the County/City OTIA III revenue sharing agreement, annual revenues for pavement preservation are projected to fall to just over $2.0 million by FY09. Together with an approximate $700,000 in ongoing transportation reimbursement SDC revenue, this would provide annual preservation funding of only $2.7 million. When the Budget Subcommittee on Transportation Funding presented its report to the council in late 2001, the City was facing an estimated $67 million backlog in pavement preservation work, as confirmed by an independent consultant. By the time the council implemented the 2-cent fuel tax increase in early 2005, that backlog had grown to nearly $94 million and was projected at $102 million as of the end of 2005. In addition, the Budget Subcommittee concluded that $425,000 in estimated annual funding was also needed to address the backlog of off-street bike path repair and preservation projects. With additional pavement preservation funding of approximately $6.0 million per year (the amount needed to bring total projected annual preservation funding to approximately $9 million), the City could not only stabilize the growth in both of these backlogs but also begin to make significant progress in reducing this substantial future community liability. L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060724\S060724B.doc Road Fund Operations and Maintenance The Road Fund accounts for operations and maintenance (O&M) of the city’s street system. The majority of Road Fund revenue comes from Eugene’s share of the State Highway Trust Fund, which is derived from Oregon motor vehicle fuel taxes as well as state motor vehicle registration fees and weight- mile taxes. Revenue growth in the State Highway Trust Fund has been relatively flat since FY00, when the City was receiving about $6.0 million per year in allocations. The projected revenue for FY07 is less than $6.2 million, which equates to only a 3% growth over the entire seven-year period. The second major source of revenue for this fund is the County/City Road Partnership Agreement that once contributed $2.5 million per year and more recently has been providing about $1.2 million in annual street maintenance funding to Eugene. The current agreement expires in FY07, and the Board of County Commissioners has adopted a five-year Capital Improvement Plan which discontinues the partnership payments to Lane County cities after FY07, which means that Eugene would lose over $1 million in annual street maintenance funding beginning in FY08. In the meantime, Eugene continues to look for opportunities to cooperate with the County in identifying sustainable mechanisms and agreements for funding operations, maintenance and preservation (OM&P) to meet the broad transportation needs in the region. Cost reductions of $850,000 were implemented in the Road Fund in FY04, primarily through elimination of the in-house street overlay program and organizational restructuring and consolidations of Public Works divisions and work crews, which resulted in the elimination of supervisory positions. These cost reductions were implemented as a partial remedy for stabilizing the O&M activities for the city’s road system, with the hope that additional revenue sources for O&M activities would eventually be realized as an outcome of the council’s ongoing work with transportation funding. Some relief was also provided by the City Council’s February 27, 2006, action, which shifted nearly $655,000 of Road Fund program costs related to street trees/median maintenance to the Stormwater Fund. However, insufficient remedies and additional resources have been identified to date, so that by FY08 when the County/City Partnership transfer is scheduled to be discontinued, the Road Fund is expected to generate an annual operating deficit of nearly $1.3 million (growing to nearly $2 million by FY10) in the course of providing basic O&M activities such as street lighting, pothole patching, street tree maintenance, signing and striping. An additional annual revenue stream of $1.5 million would stabilize funding for ongoing O&M activities through the six-year forecast period. A portion of the proceeds from a TSMF could also potentially be considered as a funding source to address other transportation-related priority needs which have been recognized by the council but for which no ongoing funding source has yet been identified. If made available, annual Budget Committee deliberations could direct the priority uses of those resources. Proposed Ordinance, Public Outreach and Timeline Attachment A includes both a proposed ordinance for establishing a transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF) as well as a memo which outlines the principal provisions of that proposed ordinance. That memo also provides an overview of staff’s rate modeling work efforts, along with estimated rates and sample customer fee levels under specified assumptions. The City Manager is proposing to schedule a public hearing this fall to take public comment on the proposed ordinance establishing a transportation system maintenance fee. L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060724\S060724B.doc This proposed ordinance is similar in many ways to the 2003 ordinance which was adopted and then later repealed. It would establish a TSMF to be paid by all customers having possession or control of premises in the city. The fee would be used to fund operation, maintenance and preservation of the existing transportation system, including funding to reduce the backlog of needed street repairs. The ordinance would restrict the use of revenues to the prescribed purposes and would prohibit the use of revenues for capacity-enhancing street improvements. The rate methodology recommended by staff includes three components: 1) a variable trip-rate component which uses estimated trip generation to measure a customer’s impact on the transportation system; 2) a flat base rate component; and 3) a flat administrative fee component. The methodology includes five residential and four non-residential customer property use categories. The current estimated monthly fees for three typical use categories range from $5.22 for a single-family home and $19.95 for a general office building measuring 12,000 square feet up to $824.75 per month for a supermarket measuring 40,000 square feet. More specific details and additional sample fees are included in the memo provided as Attachment A. Finally, Attachment B is a Transportation Funding/Pavement Preservation Public Outreach and Involvement Plan outlining the goals and strategies for a public outreach and education effort, as well as the proposed key messages and audiences, along with a tactical implementation schedule for this communication effort. RELATED COUNCIL GOALS AND POLICIES The council’s Vision and Goals Statement with respect to Fair, Stable and Adequate Financial Resources reaffirms its commitment to “a local government whose ongoing financial resources are based on a fair and equitable system of taxation and other revenue sources and are adequate to maintain and deliver municipal services.” The 2001-2002 City Council Work Plan Item 1 under this goal called for an effort to “Identify and implement funding sources (including possible reallocation of existing sources) for operation, maintenance and preservation of the transportation system.” It was based on this charge that the Citizen’s Subcommittee on Transportation System Funding began meeting in September 2000 to study this issue and develop a report and recommendation. Additionally, the City’s Financial Management Goals and Policy, A.4, states that the City’s municipal service priority Level 2 (second only to the preservation of the public safety system) is to “maintain and replace the City’s fixed assets, which includes… infrastructure…so as to optimize their life.” COUNCIL OPTIONS Option 1: The council can direct the City Manager to schedule a public hearing on a proposed ordinance to establish a transportation maintenance fee, which would generate an approximate net $5.0 million for FY08 pavement preservation funding and $1.5 million for annual road operations funding needs. Option 2: The council can direct the City Manager to modify the proposed ordinance prior to scheduling a public hearing. Option 3: The council can choose to take no action at this time with regard to the need for additional pavement preservation and road operations funding. L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060724\S060724B.doc CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the council direct the City Manager to proceed with a public outreach and education effort and to schedule a public hearing this fall on a proposed ordinance establishing a transportation system maintenance fee. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to direct the City Manager to proceed with a public outreach and education effort and to schedule a public hearing on a proposed ordinance establishing a transportation system maintenance fee. ATTACHMENTS A. Staff memo: “An Ordinance Establishing Transportation System Maintenance Fees” and proposed transportation system maintenance fee ordinance B. Staff memo: “Transportation Funding/Pavement Preservation Public Outreach and Involvement Plan” FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Kurt Corey Telephone: 682-5241 Staff E-Mail: kurt.a.corey@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060724\S060724B.doc ATTACHMENT A Public Works Administration City of Eugene 858 Pearl Street M Eugene, Oregon 97401 EMORANDUM (541) 682-5241 (541) 682-6826 FAX www.ci.eugene.or.us Date: July 24, 2006 To: Mayor Piercy and City Council From: Kurt Corey, Public Works Director, 682-5241 Subject: An Ordinance Establishing Transportation System Maintenance Fees Based on Council direction at the February 27, 2006, work session on transportation system funding needs, staff has prepared this memo, which describes the principal provisions of a proposed transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF) rate methodology, provides estimated rates and example customer fees and points out major elements of a TSMF ordinance. A proposed ordinance accompanies this memo. This ordinance is based on and is similar to the prior TSMF ordinance adopted by Council on December 9, 2002 and subsequently repealed by Council on September 8, 2003. Overview of an Ordinance Establishing the TSMF Under state law and local code a TSMF would fall into the category of utility or user fees. Authority to establish utility and user fees falls to local governments under state statutes. An ordinance establishing a transportation system maintenance fee should address the following elements: Purposes of the TSMF, which also control the allowed uses of the fee; $ Definitions for terms used in establishing and controlling the TSMF; $ Restrictions, beyond the purposes statement, on uses of TSMF revenues; $ Authority for imposing, setting and modifying the amount of the fee (ratemaking procedure); $ Ratemaking standards which control the basis and methodology for implementing the fee; $ Adjustments and appeals; $ Mechanisms for billing, payment and collections; and, $ . Authority for administrative rule making and methodology $ The proposed ordinance would establish a TSMF to be paid by all customers having possession or control of premises in the city. Vacant or undeveloped property would not be charged. The purpose of the fee will be to fund operation, maintenance and preservation of the transportation system, including reducing the backlog of needed street repairs. A detailed definition of the transportation system is provided in the ordinance to further clarify those portions of the system which are eligible for use of TSMF revenues. Revenues would be used to operate, preserve and maintain the existing street and bikeway system. Use of revenue would be restricted to the prescribed purposes and would be further prohibited from use for capacity-enhancing improvements of the street system. The ordinance is structured to be generally consistent with adopted wastewater and stormwater service charge (user fee) ordinances. Based on prior Council direction, the TSMF ordinance would provide more detail on ratemaking standards and customer categories than ordinances governing stormwater and wastewater user fees. The ordinance would provide a policy framework, fundamental rate structure and minimum customer categories, procedures, limitations and a mechanism for implementation of the rates by administrative order of the City Manager. This implementation mechanism would provide for public notice and a public hearing prior to the City Manager issuing an order imposing or amending the fee. The ordinance also would provide for the Council, if it so chooses, to review and hold a hearing on any change proposed by the City Manager. The Council could approve, modify or disallow a proposed fee or fee modification which it reviews. The ordinance also provides for customers or the City Manager to initiate an adjustment to a customer’s fee and sets out criteria for determining when an adjustment is appropriate. Methods for billing and collection of the fee would be established. All customers would receive annual notification of the TSMF rates and the proposed uses of revenues derived from the fee. A standard provision would be included to allow the City Manager to adopt rules and methodologies to carry out the provisions of the ordinance. Recommended Rate Methodology, Customer Categories, and Example Fees The proposed TSMF ordinance describes a general rate methodology and potential adjustment factors for the rates. The recommended TSMF methodology includes three components that together would make up the TSM fee: a variable trip-rate component, a flat base component and a flat administrative component. This is different from the prior methodology in the 2003 ordinance that based the entire fee on trip-rates. Each component of the TSMF rate model is associated with specific funding requirements and would have revenue targets identified as part of the annual budget adoption process. Staff has assumed these revenue targets for FY08 based on the identified capital pavement preservation backlog and projected annual operating shortfalls in the Road Operating Fund. Variable Trip-rate Component The first component of the recommended rate methodology, the variable trip-rate component, uses estimated trip generation to measure a customer’s impact on the transportation system. The revenue target for this component is $4.76 million in FY08, which assumes continuation of the City’s motor vehicle fuel tax at the $0.05 per gallon level. Revenue from this component would be used for capital pavement preservation projects since these projects relate directly to traffic usage. Measurement of trip generation is primarily based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual with adjustments to estimated usage of the system allowed to recognize additional data related to trip generation or other factors influencing estimated system usage. This component will generate a variable fee, based on the average trip-rate for the customer category and the size of the customer’s premises (number of dwelling units, number of 1000’s square feet, or equivalent measure). Flat Base Component The second component is a flat base component based on the funding need for general, ongoing transportation system operation and maintenance. This component currently has an assumed revenue target of $1.5 million in FY08 to address the projected fund shortfalls for road operation and maintenance. This includes ongoing non-capital street and sidewalk maintenance, operation of traffic signals and streetlights, maintenance of street trees and medians, street striping, signage, and other activities whose costs are not primarily driven by impact of traffic. This component would be charged on a per-account or per-dwelling unit basis at a uniform rate for all payers. Flat Administrative Component The third and final component is a flat administrative component to recover the cost of administration of the TSMF. Assuming the TSMF billing is included on current city wastewater/stormwater billings (the least cost approach), the cost of program administration is estimated to be approximately $460,000 in FY08. To levy the variable trip-rate fee component the ordinance requires a minimum set of customer categories to provide a distinction between levels of estimated use of the transportation system by groups of system users with similar trip generation characteristics. The recommended TSMF methodology includes five separate residential and four non-residential customer property use categories. Residential categories are distinguished by type of residential units reflecting differing trip generating characteristics per dwelling unit. Non-residential categories include many different uses grouped within ranges of trip generation rates, with each group then assigned an average trip-rate per 1,000 square feet of building area or equivalent unit of measure. This approach provides a balance of equity among customer categories and relative administrative simplicity to keep administrative costs down, which was also used in the prior ordinance. Table A below provides a listing of the recommended customer categories and the projected trip generation rate for each category. The following Table B provides examples of fees for sample individual customers given currently assumed revenue targets. Future final rates will depend on revenue requirements established through the budget adoption process and refinements of the actual number, type and size of customers charged. Staff has prepared these example estimated fees using a rate model based on the best currently-available data. Rates provided at this time differ from those provided to Council in previous deliberations (July 2002) due to several factors, including use of more specific data on number, type and size of customers to be charged within various residential and nonresidential customer categories, modified assumptions of revenue requirements, updated trip generation rates, and refinement of pass-by trip adjustments. Table A - Proposed Customer Categories and Daily Average Trips per Units of Measure Residential Description Unit of Daily Customer Measure Average Categories Trips per Unit of Measure Single-Family Detached single-family home on an individual lot. Dwelling 9.5 Detached Housing Duplexes and triplexes are considered single-family Unit residences. Apartment, Dwelling unit located in the same building with at least Dwelling 6.5 Condominium or three other dwelling units. Includes quadraplexes and all Unit Townhouse types of multi-unit buildings. Mobile Home Mobile homes sited and installed on permanent Dwelling 4.9 Space foundations, typically in mobile home park with Unit community facilities such as laundry or community room. Retirement Facilities restricted to adults or senior citizens with Dwelling 2.6 Community or independent or assisted living and care facilities - Unit Congregate Care contain residential units similar to apartments or Facility condominiums, and are usually self-contained villages. Group Home Residential facilities offering rooms, with common Room 2.5 dining and utility services. Description Non-residential Unit of Daily Customer Measure Average Categories Trips per Unit of Measure Low Traffic Impact Uses typified by trip generation rates below 15 average 1000 Sq. 5.5 daily trip-ends per unit of measure after pass-by trip Ft. Gross adjustment. Floor Area Medium Traffic Uses typified by trip generation rates between 15 and 45 1000 Sq. 26.3 Impact average daily trip-ends per unit of measure after pass-by Ft. Gross trip adjustment. Floor Area High Traffic Uses typified by trip generation rates above 45 average 1000 Sq. 78.7 Impact daily trip-ends per unit of measure after pass-by trip Ft. Gross adjustment. Floor Area Education Elementary, middle and high schools, colleges and Student 1.5 universities Summary of Rate Assumptions Used for Example Fees ? Lane County Partnership revenue transfer of $1.2 million ends after FY07. ? Temporary 2-cent City fuel tax increase is renewed and total rate continues at $0.05 per gallon. ? Costs to bill and collect the TSMF are minimized by including the fee on current utility bills, along with stormwater/wastewater fees. ? TSMF is billed beginning July 2007. ? TSMF is made up of three components: base component, trip-rate component, and administrative component. ? Base fee component raises $1.5 million in FY08 to cover projected shortfall in Road Fund for road operation and maintenance activities. ? Trip-rate fee component raises $4.76 million in FY08 for the capital pavement preservation program. ? Administrative fee component raises $460,000 in FY08 to administer and implement the TSMF program. ? Customers are grouped in five residential and four nonresidential customer categories to keep administrative cost and complexity at an acceptable level. Table B - Examples of Monthly Fees for Typical Customers - Estimated TSMF Rates Residential Size Estimated Total Monthly Fee Single-Family Home 1 $5.22 Apartment 1 $4.43 Mobile Home 1 $4.01 Retirement Apartment 1 $3.41 Group Housing 6 rooms $6.63 Low Traffic Impact General Office Building 12,000 sq. ft. $19.95 Park 34.5 acres $52.23 Motel 30 rooms $45.77 General Light Industry 11,000 sq. ft. $18.51 Medium Traffic Impact Clinic 4,500 sq. ft. $33.66 Specialty Retail Center 5,000 sq. ft. $37.10 Shopping Center 100,000 sq. ft. $690.01 Discount Club 35,000 sq. ft. $243.28 High Traffic Impact Government Office 18,000 sq. ft. $372.65 Supermarket 40,000 sq. ft. $824.76 Quality Restaurant 6000 sq. ft. $126.04 Fast Food Restaurant 2,500 sq. ft. $54.11 Education Elementary School 135 students $47.41 Middle School 300 students $102.00 High School 1500 students $499.08 University of Oregon 20,000 students $6,620.68 Page 4 Potential Adjustments and Reductions to Rates In addition to specifying a minimum distinction between categories of residential and non-residential uses, the ordinance provides for the City Manager to consider other factors in the TSMF rates to adjust or reduce the fee for categories of customers. Adjustments and reductions would be specified in the administrative rules adopted by the City Manager. Fee reductions allow for recognition of reduced usage or demand on the transportation system. For example, in implementing the rate methodology, reductions in fees can be allowed for mixed-use development or for businesses implementing transportation demand management strategies such as providing transit passes to employees. Further analysis is required to determine the appropriate types and amount of reductions to include in the rate methodology, but it is important to give consideration to providing incentives and recognition for customers’ efforts to reduce demand on the transportation system. Next Steps The City Manager is proposing to schedule a public hearing this fall to take public comment on the proposed ordinance establishing a transportation system maintenance fee. If the ordinance was adopted, the earliest likely date for implementation would be July 1, 2007, and the critical work elements for implementation would include: Update and evaluate data necessary to implement the rate methodology and establish fee amounts $ for all customers; Develop and implement agreements, systems and methods to enable billing of the TSMF; $ Develop administrative rules specifying rate methodology and adjustments; $ Give notice of proposed fees and hold a public hearing; and $ Prepare findings and administrative order implementing the fee. $ If you have questions regarding this proposal for an ordinance or any information in this memo, don’t hesitate to contact me at 682-5241 or kurt.a.corey@ci.eugene.or.us. Page 5 ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE FEES AND ADDING SECTIONS 7.750 THROUGH 7.790 TO THE EUGENE CODE, 1971. Section 1 . Sections 7.750 through 7.790 of the Eugene Code, 1971, are added to provide as follows: 7.750 Transportation System Maintenance Fee - Establishment; Purpose. (1) Except as otherwise provided in sections 7.755 to 7.790 of this code, each person responsible, as defined in section 7.755 of this code, shall pay a Transportation System Maintenance (TSM) Fee to the city, in an amount to be determined by sections 7.765 and 7.770 of this code. (2) The purpose of the Transportation System Maintenance Fee is to provide stable and adequate funding to: (a) Operate, maintain, preserve and improve elements of the citys = transportation system; and (b) Reduce the backlog of needed street repairs as measured by the citys = annual pavement condition survey. 7.755 Definitions. For purposes of sections 7.750 to 7.790 of this code, unless the context requires otherwise, words and phrases shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this section. In interpreting the meaning of words in a definition, other definitions of that word in this code may be considered. City manager. The city manager of the City of Eugene, or the city managers = designee. Dwelling unit. A facility designed for permanent or semi-permanent occupancy by a single family and provided with minimum kitchen, sleeping and sanitary facilities. Non-residential use. Use of a premises for any use other than a dwelling unit or units. Person. An individual, trust, firm, joint stock company, joint venture, consortium, commercial entity, partnership, association, corporation, commission, state and any agency thereof, political subdivision of the state, interstate body or the federal government, including any agency thereof. Person responsible. The utility account customer if the charges are billed with the utility account billing, otherwise the person having possession or control of a premises. Premises. A parcel or portion of a parcel of land within the limits of the City of Eugene, with structures or other improvements on it, or upon which construction or other activity occurs, the use of which generates usage of the transportation Ordinance - 1 system. Residential use. Use of a premises exclusively as a dwelling unit. Transportation system. All transportation-related components located on city- owned property, city right-of-way, city easements, or which the city is contractually or legally obligated to operate and maintain, or for which the city has accepted responsibility under intergovernmental agreement, but that are not routinely funded by assessments or work that would otherwise be eligible for the improvement fee component of transportation System Development Charges including: (a) Existing streets, alleys, curbs and gutters, improvements and installations which are primarily for motor vehicle use. (b) Existing on-street and off-street and new off-street sidewalks, paths, improvements and installations, which are designated primarily for pedestrian use. (c) Existing on-street and off-street and new off-street paths improvements and installations, which are designated primarily for bicycle or other non-motor vehicle use. Usage of the citys transportation system. A measure of consumption of = transportation system services resulting from movement of vehicles, people and goods across the citys transportation system as determined by the city manager. = 7.760 Transportation System Maintenance Fees - Revenue. (1) All TSM fees collected by the city shall be used only for the purposes described in subsection (2) of section 7.750 of this code and related administrative costs, but shall not be used for capacity-enhancing street improvements. (2) The city manager shall make an annual report to the city council of TSM fee revenues and uses of the revenues during the preceding fiscal year. 7.765 Transportation System Maintenance Fee - Rates. (1) Ratemaking procedure. (a) Before proposing to impose or amend the TSM fee, the city manager shall conduct an investigation of the revenue needs of the city for the purposes listed in subsection (2) of section 7.750 of this code and to recover the cost of administering the TSM fee. Based on that investigation, and using criteria set out below, the city manager shall develop the proposed TSM fee. (b) Prior to the imposition or amendment of the TSM fee, the city manager shall give notice of the proposed rate or fee as provided in subsection (3) of section 2.020 of this code and, in addition, to the news media. (c) The notice of proposed fee shall state the current and proposed charge, the results of the city managers investigation, and the time, place and manner in = which interested persons may present their views on the intended action. (d) No earlier than ten days after the first publication of notice of the proposed fee, the city manager shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed fee. The city manager shall give interested persons a reasonable opportunity to submit data or views in writing on the proposed charge. Ordinance - 2 (e) The city manager, on the basis of his or her investigation and the comments of interested persons, shall approve, modify or disallow the proposed fee by order. The order shall contain written findings and conclusions based on the standards set forth below. The city manager shall mail copies of the order to all persons who have submitted written or oral comments on the charge or who have requested a copy of the order. The city manager shall also provide copies of the order to the mayor and city councilors. Unless reviewed by the council, the order is final on the eleventh day after it is signed by the city manager. (f) At the request of a majority of the members of the council made within ten days of the city managers order, the order, or any part thereof, shall be reviewed = by the council. The council may conduct a public hearing on the proposed fee or review the order solely on the basis of the administrative record before the city manager. After this review, the council shall approve, modify or disallow the proposed fee. (2) Ratemaking standards. (a) The TSM fee may be based on a number of components, including a variable trip-rate (use) component, a flat base component and a flat administrative component. (b) The variable trip-rate component shall be based upon the estimated usage of the citys transportation system generated by the use of the premises, taking = into account the amount needed for capital preservation. The charges for use of the city transportation system shall distinguish between residential and non-residential premises, and shall further distinguish between classes of customers, both residential and non-residential, according to estimated usage of the citys transportation system. = Each class of customers shall be assigned an appropriate rate, based on average estimated use of the citys transportation system by customers in that class. The = classes of customers shall include, at a minimum, the following classifications of residential and non-residential customers: 1. Residential classifications: A. Single family detached; duplex; triplex; B. Apartment; townhouse or condominium; C. Mobile home space; D. Retirement community; congregate care; E. Group homes. 2. Non-residential: A. Low transportation system usage; B. Medium transportation system usage; C. High transportation system usage; D. Education. (c) Estimated usage for each classification of customers shall be based primarily on the estimated number of daily trips generated per dwelling unit, thousand gross square feet, or other unit of measure appropriate to the classification, using the seventh edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, or a later edition of that manual or other comparable professional measurement of trip Ordinance - 3 generation adopted by the city manager by rule adopted pursuant to sections 7.795 and 2.019 of this code. Estimated usage for each classification may also take into account additional data, including but not limited to pass-by trips, modes of transportation, heavy vehicle usage, transportation strategies that reduce or increase usage of the citys transportation system, targeted traffic studies and trip generation = surveys. (d) The flat base component shall take into account the amount needed for operation and maintenance activities, and shall be assessed at a uniform rate per dwelling unit or per account. (e) The flat administrative component shall be based on the amount needed to recover the costs of administering the TSM fee and shall be assessed at a uniform rate per dwelling unit or per account. (f) In addition to the standards described in subsection (2)(a) – (e) of this section, in developing or amending the rates, the city manager shall consider the following: 1. The amount charged for such service in the past; 2. The amounts charged or proposed to be charged by other providers for comparable purposes; 3. The revenue needed for the purposes listed in subsection (2) of section 7.750 of this code, taking into account all other revenue available for these purposes; 4. Other relevant adopted policies of the council; 5. The terms of any applicable intergovernmental agreement relating to the citys transportation system; and = 6. Applicable federal or state regulations or conditions imposed as part of a federal or state grant or financial assistance agreement. (g) The city manager may provide, by rule, for a list of specific premise characteristics that the city manager has determined correlate with an increase or decrease in usage of the transportation system. The rule shall include the degree to which a fee will be adjusted for each specific premise characteristic. The list may include, but is not limited to, the number of licensed drivers at a residence, size of a residence, and trip-reduction strategies including Lane Transit District group pass program participation if such strategies are demonstrated to be effective. 7.770 Charges - Adjustments. (1) Any person responsible or the city manager may initiate a review of a charge to determine if there is a basis to modify the charge. The person responsible may apply to the city manager for a modification of the charge, and, if applicable, a credit for any excessive charges paid during all or part of the 12 months preceding the application. The application shall be on a form provided by the city and shall be accompanied by the fee set by the city manager under section 2.020 of this code. The city manager shall approve or deny the application using the procedures and criteria set forth in this section. A review initiated by the city manager shall not require an application or fee from the person responsible. (2) The charge shall be modified, and the appropriate credit given, if the city Ordinance - 4 manager finds that: (a) Actual usage of transportation system generated by the use of the premises differs from estimated usage to an extent that actual usage corresponds to the usage in a different customer class; (b) An error has been made in identification of the use or uses of a premises that affects the customer class assigned to the premises; or (c) An error has been made in calculating the number of dwelling units, thousand gross square feet, or other units of measure of the premises. (d) An error has been made in adjusting an individual fee pursuant to subsection (2)(g) of section 7.765 of this code. (3) Any modification given under this section shall continue until the city manager determines the premises no longer qualifies for the modification given. If the city manager determines the premises no longer qualifies for the modification, written notice of that determination shall be given to the person responsible. The city managers determination may be appealed as provided in = section 2.021 of this code. A copy of the decision on appeal shall be mailed to the applicant, parties who have requested a copy, and, if a reduction or elimination is ordered, to the billing agency. 7.775 Charges - Collection and Payment. (1) The city manager shall certify the TSM fees to be collected. Collection shall be performed by the city manager or any person or entity with whom the city manager contracts to perform those duties. (2) The TSM fee shall be imposed on a monthly basis or as otherwise provided by rule. (3) The person responsible for each premises shall be responsible for paying the charges. (4) Each person responsible for a premises shall be notified at least once annually of the rate or the amount of the charge and the allocation of revenue expected from application of the charge. 7.780 Charges – Delinquencies and Cost of Collection. (1) The city manager or contracted person or entity collecting the charges shall enforce the collection of fees by any means of collection provided by the laws of the state and permitted by the charter and ordinances of the city. Any fee due which is not paid when due may be recovered in an action at law by the city. (2) In the event any suit or action is instituted to enforce this section, if the city is the prevailing party, the city shall be entitled to recover from the person sued reasonable attorneys = fees at trial or upon appeal of such suit or action, in addition to all other sums provided by law. 7.790 Administrative Regulations and Methodology. The city manager may adopt and amend such rules and methodologies as are necessary for the administration of the duties required by sections 7.750 through 7.790 of this code, as provided in section 2.019 of this code. Section 2. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the City Ordinance - 5 Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, to the provisions added, amended or repealed herein. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this ____ day of ____________, 2006. ____ day of ____________, 2006. _______________________________ _________________________________ City Recorder Mayor Ordinance - 6 ATTACHMENT B Public Works Administration City of Eugene 858 Pearl Street M Eugene, Oregon 97401 EMORANDUM (541) 682-5241 (541) 682-6826 FAX www.ci.eugene.or.us Date: July 24, 2006 To: Mayor Piercy and City Council From: Eric Jones, Public Works Public Affairs Manager Subject: Transportation Funding/Pavement Preservation Public Outreach and Involvement Plan Communication Plan Strategic Elements The goals of public outreach and involvement around locally controlled, sustainable funding for pavement preservation and other transportation services are to provide information to citizens about pavement preservation and maintenance services, including how these services are delivered and currently funded in Eugene; and to provide information to and receive input from potential feepayers regarding a transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF), including how such a fee would be structured and how it would affect them. A number of strategies can be used to help achieve these communication goals: ? We will integrate public opinion on transportation funding in a broad programmatic effort that includes legislative solutions and long-term, viable partnerships with other governmental agencies. ? We will incorporate valuable insights we receive from Council direction as well as from interviews with opinion leaders, staff focus groups, and analysis of what other Oregon cities have done in area of transportation funding. ? We will tailor our outreach mechanisms to reach targeted audiences as well as the general public. ? We will develop a strong internal communications element to inform and involve employees. ? We will build on the successes established in the 2002 “Take a Closer Look” campaign. ? We will emphasize the pavement preservation projects completed in the past several years. We have a number of key audiences and stakeholders with whom we need to communicate. These include neighborhood groups; local ratepayers; business affiliations (e.g., Grocers Association, restaurant owners); school districts and the University of Oregon, officials from local agencies such as Lane County, Eugene Water & Electric Board, the Oregon Department of Transportation, and the City of Springfield; City of Eugene employees; and the media. Among the key messages: ? The city of Eugene and the Eugene Public Works Department are accountable for and are doing a good job of using the transportation funds they currently have. ? It’s very important to maintain our existing streets to keep them from falling into greater disrepair. ? The best funding strategy for maintenance of our transportation system is to use locally controlled, sustainable sources of revenue. ? The fairest and most equitable way to distribute the cost of maintaining our local transportation system is a combination of funding sources, such as a local gas tax and a local transportation system maintenance fee. ? Everyone benefits from a well-maintained transportation system. Tactical Implementation Schedule for Public Communication Generally, the public outreach process will consist of three phases: ? Planning and analysis – confirming strategies, stakeholders and key messages, and gathering information to be used in the various outreach materials. Although this is an ongoing process, the initial phase of planning and analysis will be completed by late July. ? Preparing outreach materials – likely materials would include an updated video, a web site (including links to council documents as well as a feedback loop), a newsletter modeled after the “Take a Closer Look” publication used in 2002, and a PowerPoint presentation and fact sheets for community presentations. The goal is to complete the initial preparation of outreach materials by mid-August. ? Presenting the information and receiving feedback – this would include presentations to neighborhood and community groups, getting information to the media to disseminate to the widest possible audience, and an open house to provide an informal forum for residents to share their views and opinions. Ultimately, a formal process including a public hearing would be used to gather opinions for the council’s consideration. While some outreach materials (for example, running an updated video) may be put into use by mid-August, most outreach would begin in early September and continue throughout the month and into October. Plans call for a community workshop in late September or early October. The formal part of the process, including a public hearing, would be contingent on the council’s direction for proceeding with an ordinance. Total cost of the outreach/involvement effort would be in the range of $10,000. The primary costs would be for printing and distributing a newsletter and updating a video and other presentation materials this fall, and preparing and distributing a brochure or other form of written communication at such time as a TSMF charge is actually implemented,. Staff can manage these costs within the approved FY07 budget, and no additional appropriation for this purpose is being requested. Finally, it should be noted that the communications process described above would likely be a dynamic and flexible process. As we receive information, we will modify our materials to take into account the information we receive and ensure that we are addressing the areas of most interest and concern.