Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County-funded study outlines how a transportation utility fee could be structured
Summary
Consultants briefed the council on a countywide transportation utility fee study: purpose, legal changes, methodology (trip‑based demand units), data needs, example fee ranges and next steps; members asked about municipal authority, equity protections and existing revenue offsets.
Fred, the consultant presenting the transportation utility fee study, told the council the project will analyze whether a monthly transportation utility fee (TUF) could help bridge funding gaps for capital and operating needs.
Fred explained the TUF differs from a one‑time transportation impact fee: it is an ongoing monthly charge tied to customer classes and estimated trip generation rather than a uniform tax. He said the recent legislative changes require a minimum set of customer classes and set reporting and sunset expectations for studies; he noted a 10‑year statutory window to keep such studies refreshed.
The study methodology will estimate demand using parcel and land‑use data and Institute of Transportation Engineers trip rates, calculate current revenue sources (impact fees, Class C road funds, property taxes), identify any funding inadequacy, and then derive a monthly fee per demand unit to cover that gap. Fred listed required inputs: parcel database (with some fields the county must refine), capital improvement plans, billing databases and departmental operating needs.
He provided comparables showing implemented and studied TUFs across the state ranging in examples from about $3 to $18.50 per month (Highland), and cited a recently completed analysis that produced preliminary results in the $6–$8 range for a project labeled 'PAC.'
Council members asked whether small cities can impose the fee and whether the county would supplant existing revenues. Fred said he saw no size limitation in statute but would confirm, that municipalities would implement and set their own rates even when the county/COG funds a study, and that existing revenue (including Class C road funds) must be accounted for and would offset the funding gap rather than be replaced.
Members also raised equity concerns for fixed‑income households; Fred said abatement or hardship policies are typically set by local policy after adoption and that the study can expand customer categories (single‑family, multifamily, commercial, industrial) to refine impacts.
Next steps: the consultant requested data sharing from municipalities to complete community‑level analyses and asked the council to indicate which jurisdictions want to participate in an individual analysis.
