Laserfiche WebLink
Effects of $4 Million Service Reductions” section of the agenda item summary and Attachment A to the <br />summary, Examples of Service Impacts in a $4.0 Million Road Fund Budget Reduction Scenario by Order of <br />Magnitude, which described the reductions in greater detail. Mr. Corey noted that the services listed in the <br />reduction breakdown had not been prioritized, and further noted that the reductions did not appear to be <br />scalable in any feasible way. <br />Mr. Corey briefed the council on the two interim funding strategy revenue options from the agenda item <br />summary: franchise fees on City and other utilities and a surcharge on garbage haulers. He noted that the <br />garbage surcharge option had been brought before the council in 2007 and failed in a 5 to 4 vote, but that <br />Public Works still felt it was a viable option to consider. <br />Mr. Corey noted that the utility franchise fee option would make use of an existing billing system and <br />subsequently require significantly lower overhead costs than other revenue options. <br />Mr. Corey, in describing the process of the garbage surcharge revenue option, restated for the council that it <br />was based on the assumption of a clear nexus between garbage haulers and the impact on local transportation <br />systems. He added that the garbage surcharge option, like the franchise fees, would make use of pre-existing <br />billing systems in order to save on overhead costs. <br />Mr. Corey noted that lighting fees, transportation utility fees based on parking spaces, and a re-allocation of <br />the City’s five-cent gas tax, continued to be considered as possible revenue options as well. <br />Mr. Corey noted that the council could also chose to divert revenue from the City’s General Fund to O&M <br />expenditures as described in the agenda item summary. <br />Mr. Corey noted that the supplemental O&M funding that Lane County Public Works had received Lane <br />through the County’s Secure Rural Schools program would suffer significant reductions over the next four <br />years before potentially ceasing altogether. Therefore, revival of the historic County/City partnership payment <br />was unlikely. <br />Mr. Corey noted that O&M funding from the State legislature in the form of Governor Kulongoski’s proposed <br />Jobs Transportation Act of 2009 might be forthcoming as well. <br />Mr. Corey noted that, absent any significantly altered direction from the council, Public Works would proceed <br />with the fourth council option from the agenda item summary: to develop the FY10 Road Fund budget based <br />on funding assumptions to include one or more of the proposed new revenues, some modest efficiency savings <br />and service realignments and, if necessary, and only after further Council discussion, redirection of a minor <br />portion of the local gas tax proceeds to fund on-going street operations and maintenance services. <br />Mr. Corey, responding to a question from Mr. Clark regarding what funding might be forthcoming from the <br />State legislature, noted that there was endless debate regarding the matter, but that the Governor’s proposed <br />plan included a two-cent fuel tax increase as well as increased vehicle registration fees. Mr. Corey maintained <br />that while a City gas tax would be more favorable to Eugene than a state gas tax, gas taxes overall would most <br />likely become a less consistent revenue source for state and local governments in the coming years. <br />Mr. Clark noted that the council had anticipated the shortfalls for the Road Fund and the FY10 O&M budgets, <br />but that he was reluctant to add new local taxes in light of recently passed bond measures. In addition to his <br />measured support of the fourth option before the council, Mr. Clark noted that he was also in support of the <br />third option to redirect portions of existing revenue sources. <br /> <br />MINUTES: Eugene City Council November 12, 2008 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />