HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3: An Ordinance Concerning Transportation System Maintenance Fees
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Action: An Ordinance Concerning Transportation System Maintenance Fees and Adding
Sections 7.750 through 7.790 to the Eugene Code, 1971
Meeting Date: November 27, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 3
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Kurt Corey
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5241
ISSUE STATEMENT
Eugene lacks adequate revenue to operate, maintain, and preserve its local transportation system. This
lack is manifested in a current backlog of more than $100 million in capital preservation projects and a
projected operating deficit for FY08 of nearly $1.5 million for operation and maintenance activities in
the Road Fund. The specific action item before the council is whether to approve an ordinance
establishing a transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF) for the purpose of generating revenue to
meet the operational, maintenance and preservation needs of the transportation system.
BACKGROUND
On October 16, the council held a public hearing on a proposed TSMF ordinance. Eighteen people
testified at the hearing, and additional input was provided by letter and e-mail. A summary of citizen
contacts with staff is included in Attachment B. At the conclusion of the hearing, members of the City
Council asked several questions about the TSMF and the broader issue of transportation system funding.
Councilors also suggested potential revisions to the TSMF as well as potential alternatives to the TSMF.
Responses to those questions and suggestions, including potential motions for the council to consider,
are provided in Attachment A.
The October 16 public hearing followed a work session on July 24, 2006, at which the council reviewed
a draft ordinance establishing a TSMF and directed staff to proceed with a public outreach and education
effort and to schedule a public hearing in October on the proposed TSMF. A report on public outreach
and education is summarized in Attachment B.
The direction to consider a TSMF is the result of a process that began in 2001 when 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. Subsequently, the council in December
2002 approved an ordinance establishing a TSMF. In January 2003, a related transportation revenue
measure, a local motor vehicle fuel tax was approved by the council. In September 2003, the council
voted to repeal the TSMF ordinance, citing concerns about the impact on local businesses and the hope
for collaborative solutions with partner agencies, including Lane County.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M061127\S0611273.doc
On September 26, 2005, the council reviewed and discussed the financial status and fund forecast for
Eugene’s Road Fund. Based on that discussion, the council directed the City Manager to develop an
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 would also generate additional revenue to be dedicated to the backlog of
unfunded projects in the pavement preservation program. 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.
On February 27, 2006, the council reviewed and discussed a number of potential revenue strategies to
address unmet transportation system funding needs. At that session, the council directed the City
Manager to bring back a proposal for reestablishing the previously repealed 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.
Summary of Proposed Ordinance
The proposed TSMF ordinance (Attachment C) is identical to the ordinance that was the subject of the
public hearing before council on October 16. In essence, the ordinance establishes a TSMF to be paid
by all customers having possession or control of premises in the city. The proposed rate methodology
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. To provide a frame of reference for public and council discussion,
staff in July prepared preliminary examples of monthly rates: $5.22 for a single family home; $19.95
for a 12,000-square-foot general office building; and $824.75 for a 40,000-square-foot grocery store.
The examples are based on a number of assumptions, detailed in the July 24, 2006, agenda item
summary for the council work session on the TSMF. Actual rates for each customer category would be
established through an administrative ratemaking process, following the requirements set forth in
Section 7.765 of the proposed ordinance.
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 purposes stated in the ordinance and would prohibit the use of revenues for
capacity-enhancing street improvements. The ordinance would exclude TSMF funding for projects that
are routinely funded by assessments or work that would otherwise be eligible for the improvement fee
component of transportation system development charges. To facilitate discussion at the July 24, 2006,
City Council work session, staff projected TSMF revenue for FY08 at $6.72 million, based on a number
of assumptions. Actual annual revenue targets would be established by the City Manager based on an
investigation of the prescribed revenue needs and administrative costs, in accordance with the
procedures described in the TSMF ordinance.
Attachment A offers issue analyses and potential motions, should the council wish to amend portions of
the proposed TSMF ordinance. Attachment A also discusses how offsetting revenues from the local
motor vehicle fuel tax and other alternate sources of transportation system funding would be considered
in determining the annual need for TSMF revenue.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M061127\S0611273.doc
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 approve the ordinance as drafted and direct the City Manager to take the
appropriate administrative steps to implement the ordinance.
Option 2: The council can modify the proposed ordinance and direct the City Manager to take the
appropriate administrative steps to implement the modified ordinance.
Option 3: The council can approve, modify or reject the proposed ordinance and, in addition, direct the
City Manager to return with other options to help meet the need for additional pavement
preservation and road operations funding.
Option 4: The council can reject the proposed ordinance and choose to take no action at this time with
regard to the need for additional pavement preservation and road operations funding.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the council approve the ordinance as drafted and direct staff to take
the appropriate administrative steps to implement the ordinance. If the council wishes to discuss
additional transportation system funding options, the City Manager recommends that a separate work
session be held after the TSMF ordinance is effective.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to adopt an ordinance concerning transportation system maintenance fees and adding sections
7.750 through 7.790 to the Eugene Code, 1971.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Staff memo: “Response to Questions and Comments Related to TSMF”
B. Staff memo: “Summary of Public Input Related to Transportation System Maintenance Fee”
C. Proposed Ordinance
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M061127\S0611273.doc
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\M061127\S0611273.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:
November 21, 2006
To:
Mayor Piercy and City Council
From:
Kurt Corey, Public Works Director, 682-5241
Subject:
Response to Questions and Comments Related to Transportation System Maintenance Fee
Public comments and subsequent council discussion related to an ordinance establishing a transportation
system maintenance fee (TSMF) raised several issues. This memorandum provides staff responses to
those issues and offers potential motions for council’s consideration. The issues are presented in two
categories: those directly relating to the proposed TSMF ordinance before council; and those relating to
the broader issue of adequate and sustainable revenue to operate, maintain and preserve the local
transportation system.
ISSUES RELATING DIRECTLY TO TSMF ORDINANCE
Three issues have been raised that pertain directly to the proposed TSMF ordinance. Each issue
discussion includes a summary of the issue, including pros and cons of various options, and provides for
council consideration a potential motion to amend the proposed ordinance.
Allowable Uses of TSMF Revenue
Under the proposed ordinance, the purpose of the TSMF is to provide funding to operate, maintain,
preserve and improve the city’s transportation system and to reduce the backlog of needed street repairs,
except for transportation-related components which are routinely funded by assessments or which are
eligible for funding from the improvement fee component of transportation system development charges.
TSM fees can only be used for these purposes and are specifically prohibited from use for capacity-
enhancing street improvements.
The transportation system is defined as all transportation-related components located on city-owned
property, city right-of-way, city easements. This would include existing street and alleys, on- and off-
street sidewalks and paths, and on- and off-street bike paths. The construction of new streets using TSMF
funds is prohibited in the proposed ordinance. However, the construction of new off-street sidewalks and
bike paths is permitted.
The question has been raised whether funding for operation, maintenance and construction of off-street
pedestrian and bike paths should be restricted. Operation and maintenance of off-street paths are
currently funded from the General Fund. New construction and preservation have been funded through
federal funding and transportation system development charges. Motor vehicle fuel tax revenues can not
be used to operate and maintain off-street paths that are outside of the right of way.
In its September 2001 final recommendation, the Eugene Budget Committee Citizen Subcommittee on
Transportation Funding concluded that: “The most important capital funding needs to be addressed are in
Attachment A for TSMF AIS/Council Action 112706 - 1
the backlog of preservation work on roads and off-street bike paths with the estimated annual funding
needs of $8.5 million for roads and $425,000 for off-street bike paths.” The original TSMF ordinance
approved by council in December 2002 did not restrict spending to preserve the off-street path system but
set a percentage cap on other system expenditures (not to exceed 2 percent of the total fee paid in any year
for traffic calming, sidewalk access ramps, street lighting fixtures and street trees). Restricting the use of
TSM fees for off-street bike paths could increase the funding available for street preservation projects but
would limit the funding available for preservation of the bike path system. Retaining the current
language in the ordinance provides the greatest amount of flexibility to address specific system
preservation needs on a year-to-year basis.
A percentage cap (as opposed to an absolute dollar amount) would be more responsive, over time, to
inflation and other indexed costs.
Potential Motion 1: Move to amend proposed section 7.760(1) to add the following sentence at the end:
"No more than 5% of the TSM fee revenue in any year may be spent for operation, maintenance and
construction of off-street pedestrian and bike paths."
Referring the TSMF Ordinance to Local Voters
The TSMF ordinance as proposed would be adopted by the city council under its authority as a home rule
charter form of government. Referring the matter to the voters could help measure the public’s support for
the fee as a revenue vehicle for funding the local transportation system. Approval of the referendum
would arguably be a public expression of support for the fee and would provide some assurance it would
not subsequently be placed on the ballot through the voter initiative process. Conversely, all of the public
information and outreach on this topic has suggested the ordinance would be adopted by the council; it
might be viewed as untimely, after more than six years of development of the concept, to subsequently
refer it to the voters. Additionally, the council has completed an exhaustive study of the issue and found
no other viable solution to address the transportation system funding gap.
Potential Motions:
2a. Move to amend the proposed ordinance to add a new section to the ordinance, as follows:
"Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in Section 32 of the Eugene Charter of
2002, this ordinance shall take effect only upon the approval of the electors of the City at an election."
and
2b. Move to direct the city manager to place on the consent calendar for the council's December 11, 2006
meeting, a Resolution referring the TSMF ordinance to the voters calling an election for that purpose on
the earliest available date.
Revising the Rate Methodology to “Shall” from “May”
Section 7.765 (2) (a) of the draft ordinance says that the fee may be based on a number of components,
including a variable trip-rate component, a flat base component and a flat administrative component. The
draft fee methodology does incorporate these three components.
This section may be amended to require, rather than simply permit, that these three components be part of
the rate-setting methodology. Since the draft methodology incorporates all three components, this change
will have no effect on implementation of the TSMF as proposed. The amendment would prevent the rate-
setting methodology from being changed in the future to eliminate any of the three fee components, but
elimination of any component is not anticipated to be necessary in any case.
Attachment A for TSMF AIS/Council Action 112706 - 2
Potential Motion 3: Move to amend Section 7.765(2) of the proposed ordinance to replace the word
"may" with the word "shall."
ISSUES RELATING TO BROADER ISSUE OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
During the public engagement process and in subsequent discussion by council, several additional issues
were raised that relate to the broader issue of transportation funding and, therefore, impinge on the TSMF
discussion but are not necessarily directly related to the TSMF ordinance.
Increasing the Local Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax to Offset the TSMF Revenue Target
At the October 2006 public hearing on the TSMF, city council requested information about increasing the
local gas tax in order to reduce or eliminate the amount that would need to be generated from a TSMF.
Each penny of Eugene’s local fuels tax generates roughly $670,000 per year, after factoring ODOT’s
administration costs ($11,000 per year). An individual who drives 20,000 miles per year in a 20 mile-per-
gallon vehicle pays $10 per year for each cent in the local gas tax, assuming all gas is purchased inside
city limits. The current 5 cents per gallon tax is scheduled to revert to 3 cents per gallon in February 2008.
At the current yield per penny, a 2-cent increase in the local gas tax would generate an additional $1.34
million per year. A 10-cent increase theoretically would generate an additional $6.7 million. However, a
realistic forecast must account for a reduction in yield that would result from consumer choice to purchase
outside Eugene city limits in order to avoid the tax. While staff does not have solid research to predict the
decline in yield under a given rate, it’s safe to say the loss would increase with an increasing local rate,
assuming no change in gas tax rates on fuel purchased outside city limits. A related policy issue is the
potential impact on local business owners under a scenario in which a higher local fuels tax results in lost
business income.
Springfield’s fuel tax is 3 cents per gallon, with no sunset or rate increase planned. Lane County does
not have a fuels tax.
Potential Motion 4: Move to direct the city manager to bring back for discussion after the first of the
year a draft ordinance increasing the local motor vehicle fuel tax to generate additional funding to offset
the amount that would otherwise be generated from a TSMF for pavement preservation capital funding
needs.
Using General Obligation Bonds to Meet Certain Capital Preservation Needs
General Obligation (G.O.) debt backed by property tax revenue may be used to finance transportation
system capital preservation projects. There are four main points to keep in mind when considering G.O.
bonds for transportation: (i) the opportunity to ask voters for approval of G.O. bonds is limited; (ii) G.O.
bonds cannot be used for all of the expenditures that would be eligible with other revenue sources, such as
a TSMF; (3) the City has limited capacity to issue debt under its policies; and (iv) the use of G.O. bond
will mean added costs for all taxpayers in the City.
Elections: New or additional property taxes must be approved by a majority of voters. There are four
opportunities for elections each year, in March, May, September and November. For any election except
in November of an even-numbered year, there must also be a double-majority, which means that there is
at least a 50% turnout of voters and a majority of those voters approve the measure. The next opportunity
for a non-double-majority election is in two years.
Use of Funds: G.O. bonds may be used for capital construction and capital improvements, terms which
are defined in the statutes. The definition states that G.O. bonds may not be used for maintenance and
A
repairs, the need for which could be reasonably anticipated. While G.O. bonds could be used to address
@
Attachment A for TSMF AIS/Council Action 112706 - 3
at least a portion of the capital preservation needs, they do not provide a comprehensive solution that
addresses O&M needs.
Debt Policies: The City’s debt management guidelines, which were last reviewed and approved by the
budget committee in February 2004, limit net direct debt to 1% of real market value. At the current time,
the City has about $130 million of additional capacity for debt issuance within policy limits. The recently
passed $27.5 million PROS bond measure will reduce this capacity. The proposed City Hall project is
likely to be funded in large part through G.O. bonds. The draft CIP also includes a range of projects for
which G.O. debt may provide full or partial funding. Any discussion of the use of G.O. bonds to finance
transportation capital preservation must also address other, competing uses of available G.O. debt
capacity.
Estimated Cost to Taxpayers: An early, rough estimate is that a $10 million bond issue would cost a
median-value home about $12 a year for 15 years. If $100 million worth of debt were issued to address
the existing backlog of needed street repairs, the median value homeowner would see additional property
taxes of about $125 per year.
Potential Motion 5: Move to direct the city manager to bring back for discussion after the first of the
year a proposal to refer to the voters a general obligation bond measure to generate additional funding to
offset the amount that would otherwise be generated from a TSMF for pavement preservation capital
funding needs.
Providing Assistance for Non-Profit Agencies
Concerns over the impact of the proposed TSMF on non-profit agencies have been raised through public
outreach efforts, public hearing comments and council discussion. The primary concern is that a possible
effect of the TSMF on non-profit agencies would be to reduce available funding for delivery of social
services that benefit the community. While it is critical to the community to address transportation
funding needs, social services to the community provided by non-profit agencies are also of vital
importance.
The council may wish to consider a mechanism to offset or mitigate impacts to non-profit agencies while
preserving the integrity of the TSMF as a funding source. A waiver or exemption of the TSM fee for a
selected class of customers could undermine the integrity and legal defensibility of the fee. A more
appropriate mechanism would be to create a credit program to offset or reduce fee payments for non-
profits from another funding source. Establishing a funding source to wholly offset non-profit TSM fees
is estimated to require $150,000 annually. This could be accomplished within the proposed ordinance
framework via the annual budget process and administrative rule-making authority of the city manager.
Potential Motion 6: Direct the city manager to bring back options in the FY08 budget committee
discussions for funding a TSMF offset program to reduce or eliminate TSM fee charges to non-profit
organizations that are providing social services to the community.
Attachment A for TSMF AIS/Council Action 112706 - 4
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:
November 21, 2006
To:
Mayor Piercy and City Council
From:
Eric Jones, Public Works Public Affairs Manager, 682-5523
Subject:
Summary of Public Input Related to Transportation System Maintenance Fee
On July 24, 2006, the Eugene City Council directed staff to proceed with a public outreach and education
effort and to schedule a public hearing in October on the proposed transportation system maintenance fee
(TSMF). In response to that direction, Public Works staff implemented a public outreach and education
plan that included producing and airing a six-minute video on Metro TV, distributing a four-page
newsletter to Eugene homes and businesses as inserts to The Register-Guard and Eugene Weekly,
creating a web site created to provide information and offering an opportunity for residents to submit
online comments. More than a dozen presentations were made, including presentations to the
Neighborhood Leaders Council, local school districts, the University of Oregon, the League of Women
Voters, the United Way and other non-profit agencies, and the Housing Policy Board.
Several news stories and editorials on the TSMF appeared in The Register-Guard and Eugene Weekly,
and stories also ran on local radio and TV stations. Two letters to the editor were published on this topic
during the public outreach period.
On October 16, council held a public hearing on a proposed TSMF ordinance. Eighteen people testified
at the hearing. Staff also tracked public responses and contacts received by phone, e-mail, letters, and the
online comment form. Overall, approximately 70 contacts were recorded, including 14 comments
submitted via the online form, 36 comments sent by e-mail, three letters and 17 phone calls. Staff has
continued to receive and respond to comments following the public hearing.
Many of the comments received were extensive and covered a range of issues, so it is hard to generalize
the responses. Approximately two-thirds of the comments included some statement of concern about the
TSMF as a method of raising revenue, with suggestions ranging from greater use of gas taxes to use of
property taxes to no new or increased taxes. About a third of the comments included concern about the
cost or financial impact of the proposed fee on payers, including several comments received from non-
profit service providers. About a quarter of the comments included statements of dissatisfaction with City
services in general and Public Works street repairs specifically. A little over 10 percent of the comments
included statements of concern about billing methods.
In summary, an extensive education and outreach campaign was conducted, and it is reasonable to assume
that most Eugene residents have at least some level of awareness about the TSMF as a result of the
outreach effort. Most of the issues raised by the hundred or so people who testified at the public hearing
or provided comments in other ways have been reflected in comments made by councilors, and staff is
continuing to respond to citizens and the council regarding the concerns raised and the suggestions made.
ATTACHMENT C
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
Ordinance - 1 Attachment C to Nov. 27, 2006, Agenda Item Summary
or other activity occurs, the use of which generates usage of the transportation
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 Attachment C to Nov. 27, 2006, Agenda Item Summary
(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
generation adopted by the city manager by rule adopted pursuant to sections 7.795
Ordinance - 3 Attachment C to Nov. 27, 2006, Agenda Item Summary
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
manager finds that:
Ordinance - 4 Attachment C to Nov. 27, 2006, Agenda Item Summary
(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.
Ordinance - 5 Attachment C to Nov. 27, 2006, Agenda Item Summary
Section 2.
The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the City
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 C to Nov. 27, 2006, Agenda Item Summary