Other Potential Revenue Sources Other revenue options that have been explored in Portland and other cities in Oregon are sum marized below. Special Excise Tax: Excise taxes are levied on specific ty pes of com modities. Com modities that are relatively price insensitive (e.g., cigarettes and alcohol) ar e often used for this ty pe of tax. Because of the relationship with road usage, excise taxes on autom otive parts would seem to be the most logical for funding transportation services. The public would likel y view this tax as a sales tax and give it limited support. Auto Sales Tax: An auto sales tax would levy a tax on all new cars sold in the City . The City does not have the authority to levy a sales tax, so voters would ha ve to approve a change in the City charter. A tax on the retail selling price of autos does not parallel th e use of transportation facilities. Voters would likely have a negative view of a sales tax on autos, si milar to historic views of a general sales tax in Oregon. Real Estate Transfer Tax: A real estate transfer tax is based on the selling price of real estate when property is sold. There is a very weak connection between the purchase of real estate and the cost of providing transportation services to a specific user. As such, a real estate transfer tax would probably be challenged in court. Factors to Consider for Potential New Sources of Funding Based on a com parative evaluation of proposed tran sportation funding m easures in Seattle, Denver, San Jose and Sonom a, California,23 as well as a serial levy passed three tim es in Washington County , Oregon, critical success factors leading to voter approval of transportation funding packages include: • A sunset date that does not extend too far into the future. Washington County ’s first three MSTIP (Major Street Transportation Im provem ent Program ) levies had tim e fram es no longer than six years. Seattle’ s recent approval of funding for extensive rail im provem ents has a nine-y ear sunset. In contrast, a m easure that was defeated in Denver had no sunset clause. • Using survey s, focus groups and stakeholders gr oups to help identify improvem ent priorities and fram e general budget am ounts based on how m uch voters are willing to pay and how long they are to pay it. • Geographic equity of im provem ent projects. • A m ix of projects, which could be a blend of transit and highway improvem ents in major metropolitan areas, or in sm aller cities like Medford, a com bination of street im provem ents to arterial and collector roads. • Use of an established revenue source, such as gas tax or utility fee, particularly a funding program that has been perceived in the com munity as successful, such as a specific grant program or assessm ent district. This finding also im plies that increasing the rate at which existing taxes or fees are assessed m ay have a greater chance of success than initiating a new funding program . • Strategic use of m edia based on responding to an ticipated argum ents by opponents rather than saturating the com munity . 23 From Mineta Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies, Institute Report 00-1, “W hy Cam paigns for Local Transportation Funding Initiatives Succeed or Fail: An Analysis of Four Com munities and National Data”, 2001. Medford Transportatio n System Plan 13-35 Plan Goals and Implementation

Transportation System Plan 2018-2038