Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tuf Methodology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council packet lays out ESAL-based TUF method and alternatives; staff warns trips-only method shifts burdens
Summary
Staff and consultant exhibits show Hales Engineering’s ESAL approach for allocating TUF rates across land uses, and packet materials warn that a trips-only approach would shift a disproportionate share of costs to retail and residential users while understating industrial impacts.
City staff circulated exhibits comparing alternatives for the Transportation Utility Fee methodology and presented the tradeoffs between an ESAL-weighted approach and a trips-based approach.
The Hales Engineering memorandum included in the packet shows how Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) values were calculated for the local travel-demand mix and reports that about 89% of ESALs derive from short-range medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The packet cites 305,744 daily trips in the city, 100,135 truck trips, and roughly 51,360 ESALs. Staff materials state that industrial users produce the largest share of roadway impact in the ESAL model and that using trips alone would move a disproportionate and inequitable fee burden to retail and residential accounts.
The exhibits present multiple options (EASL/ESAL, trips, expanded category splits) with comparative rate tables and revenue outcomes under $7M and $4.3M scenarios. Staff asked the council to weigh the equity tradeoffs and administrative burdens if the council wanted more granular categories (which staff said would require additional staff resources to administer).
