— This post was written by Strong Towns PDX.
Portland has long been a leader in encouraging more density and better land use through repealing parking minimums, allowing plexes on most single-family zoned lots, and adopting single-stair reforms. All of these reforms allow for more units on the same land, which allows Portland to welcome more neighbors at all wages, ages, and stages of life.
The proposed Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) of $12 per month for single-family lots, and $8.50 per month for apartment dwellers means apartment dwellers will pay 600% more on a per-acre basis than homeowners on R10-zoned lots (93% of the parcels in Northwest Heights and 81% of the parcels in Arnold Creek), and 300% compared to those on R5-zoned lots (99% of the parcels in Sabin and 97% of the parcels in Alameda), which becomes apparent when examining the fee on a per-acre basis (see chart below).
Considering apartment dwellers are also more likely to ride transit, walk, and ride a bike to meet their daily needs, leading to even less road maintenance costs, the current TUF proposal is even more regressive than has been acknowledged.
The Quick Fix
We propose scaling the Residential component (70%) of the $46 million in TUF funds based on acreage of the parcel that the dwelling occupies (see orange bars). This “Use-Based Fee” incentivizes living in an apartment or plex. This is supported by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as street maintenance also scales based on the size of parcels (see: Transportation Utility Fees).
We estimate to obtain a revenue-neutral $32.2 million, the City could charge:
- $2/month per-door fee, regardless of parcel size
- $0.20/month per 100 square-feet of parcel size
For example:
- An apartment dweller in a 20 unit building on a 5,000 sqft lot would pay $2.50/mo ($2 base fee + ($0.20 * (5000 / 100)) / 20 units), rather than $8.50/mo.
- A household on a 5,000 sqft lot would pay $12/mo, the same as under the proposed TUF.
- A household on a 10,000 sqft lot would pay $22/mo ($2 base fee + ($0.20 * (10,000 / 100))), which better approximates the additional cost of serving larger lots.
A Use-Based TUF is much less regressive on a per-acre basis, costing both apartment dwellers and homeowners on smaller lots less than the proposed fee schedule . Larger lots, while paying somewhat more, still pay less on a per-acre basis.
Contact City Council
If you want a fairer Transportation Utility Fee for Portlanders, email your City Council via the Strong Towns PDX website.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
How would this increase the cost and complexity of administering the fee in the first place? Would trying to make it ‘more fair’ for single family homeowners burn a bunch of a political capital and sour people on the idea of a TUF? I understand the argument but this strikes me as a “perfect as the enemy of good” situation.
Well there is still the (initial) complexity of the City figuring out how many doors (ie addresses) an apartment complex or multifamily has. The current residential tax the City has is based on Water meter use, so regardless there is going to be a cost to figure out how to tax the individual doors in either scenario. But once City figures out the # of doors, the proposed unit / square footage cost should be pretty simple.
Then there would be the issue of an ADU paying the same rate at the the main house…
So a ~million dollar single household condo/plex unit in bougie inner Portland* would pay less than a small outer E PDX house# that has a very low assessed value?
* For example: https://www.redfin.com/OR/Portland/116-SE-28th-Ave-97214/home/143049915
# large lots due to legacy county planning
That bougie location is one usually better served with transit and is more bikeable/walkable, and has the density to reduce the average per-resident cost of transport infrastructure, vs the small houses on large lots in transit-poor neighborhoods where it’s dangerous to walk or bike, so everyone drives. Low density sprawl is expensive to build and maintain. Making the bougies pay more on principle doesn’t change that math.
I want a fee that’s based on usage (mileage) and estimated wear due to vehicle (GVW, number of axles, type of tires), though like everyone else I guess I’m resigned to the impracticality of it. It’s too bad because it seems like the people who cause the most damage to the streets should be most responsible to pay for them. Feels pretty regressive to pay $12/month when my usage does practically no wear to the roads. I get it, I use them and it costs money to build them etc., and I’m willing to pay my fair share. But can we start by having the people who really profit from them put up the bulk of the cost? I wouldn’t ask my water bill to be the same as my neighbor if I use twice as much water as them..
No let’s suspend gas taxes because gas is now “too expensive.” That’s basically just shooting yourself in the foot and later asking why you can’t walk..
I agree there’s a problem here, but I don’t understand scaling by acreage. Why that? Seems like it is conflating density with how intensively someone uses our transportation system.
Thank you for the article, I love StrongTowns.
Here’s the catch, and I repeat it over, and over, and over, but it never really sinks in. I’ll take another shot:
Much of Portland west of the Willamette lacks the basic infrastructure that is supposed to come with paying city taxes: a stormwater system, buses, sidewalks, bike lanes. The areas west of the Tualatin Mts don’t have those amenities, despite having been annexed from Multnomah County to Portland over the course of the 20th century.
These residences have been paying city taxes for 40, 50, 60, 70 years — and longer — including the Big Pipe bond, yet the the City of Portland has neglected to bring basic infrastructure up to city standards. And this policy of turning a blind eye gives residents little choice but to drive cars. That’s Portland policy.
As an example of the missing infrastructure, here’s a photo of the intersection of Shattuck Rd and Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy — I guess pedestrians are supposed to walk in the ditch?
I support the TUF, but gosh, it doesn’t seem fair to bring a graduated fee structure to an area the city has neglected for a century. These are already historically underserved communities, rubbing salt in their wounds might not be the best idea.
Help me understand how this not just a property tax with extra steps.