CC Minutes - 11/12/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Corey, responding to a request from Ms. Piercy, clarified the State revenue proposals being discussed by noting that the distribution of the potential revenue would end up as 50% for the State, 30% for counties, and 20% for cities. Mr. Corey, responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, reported that the service impact list previously discussed had not been reviewed by the City’s Risk Services Division and that the illustrative service reductions on the list had not been prioritized or similarly evaluated by any City agency. Ms. Bettman worried that some of the proposed reduced services might expose the City to potential liabilities and that any lawsuit indirectly resulting from service reductions could completely wipe out any potential savings. Ms. Bettman said the City should investigate other previously suggested revenue options such as transportation system development charges (SDC) and a re-evaluation of the SDC credits offered to developers in the area. Ms. Bettman noted that Lane County did not charge any SDC’s and that the City might assist the County in doing so sometime in the future. Ms. Bettman felt the Public Works department should reconsider concrete as opposed to asphalt for its transportation system projects. She added that Public Works should cease its assumptions of jurisdiction over County roads as it only exposed the City to greater liability. Mr. Pryor noted he would like more information on the various issues of legality involved with imposing transportation SDC’s at the city level. He further noted that he was very concerned about budget shortfalls for the capital preservation of existing City streets, and for which SDC’s could not be used. Mr. Pryor felt that the revenue necessary to adequately provide for the Road Fund and the FY10 budget could not be found in service reductions alone and that the need to find new sources of City revenue for transportation systems was great. Mr. Zelnka agreed with Mr. Pryor’s statements and felt the service reductions put the City too deeply in a hole to rely on cuts alone. He added that the recently passed bond measures for streets might help the problem, but it would ultimately be necessary to find new sources of revenue. He noted that the street utility fee recently suggested by a council transportation subcommittee might be a potential source of revenue for transportation systems. Ms. Bettman indicated she had not read Governor Kulongoski’s proposed transportation bill, and asked if it would be dedicated to a specific transportation purpose or used towards different projects in the same manner as gas tax revenues. Mr. Corey responded that the bill would hopefully simply increase the amount of state money allocated to the cities through the State highway trust fund and, as such, could be used in a variety of ways for O&M transportation concerns. Mr. Ruiz concurred with Mr. Corey’s statement. Ms. Bettman felt the franchise fee or garbage surcharge revenue options before the council would be tantamount to asking the public to assume the debt for the O&M budgets, and indicated that she did not support either option. She maintained that the best revenue option from her perspective would be the parking space transportation utility fees previously suggested by the council transportation subcommittee. Ms. Bettman believed that the federal government would most likely begin to broaden its transportation policies in the coming years, and that subsequently the City would be wise to consider the use of streetcars should federal funding eventually be made available for such a purpose. Mr. Pryor agreed with Ms. Bettman’s comment regarding the two revenue options, and noted that the City’s interests would be best served by a combination of service reduction/reorganization and new or enhanced MINUTES: Eugene City Council November 12, 2008 Page 3 Work Session