Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor questioned why the TSMF issue was before the council again when it was only repealed a year ago and why the Chamber of Commerce was characterized as a major partner in the transportation funding effort as though it was a branch of government. She said she would prefer to see the problem discussed with neighborhood organizations. She also asked how quickly funds could be used if they became available. Mr. Corey said the funds could be immediately used. City Manager Taylor added that there were almost $11 million in contracts that could have been issued if the TSMF had not been repealed. Ms. Taylor remarked that she did not feel the meetings with the County were futile, although follow-up was needed. She said the contention during discussions was that a countywide vehicle registration fee could not be passed because people would pay according to the number of vehicles they owned and those who did not own vehicles would not pay anything. She said if all the municipalities in the County voted for a vehicle registration fee it would pass, as two-thirds of residents lived inside an incorporated area. She urged staff to work with other municipalities in the county to support a registration fee and stated she was opposed to a TSMF. She said with sufficient time for public input she would likely support a two- cent gas tax increase. Mr. Meisner also expressed disappointment that the County was not represented. He asked why the incorporated cities of Lane County were not getting part of the County's road funds, which was commen- surate with business activities, gas sales, market importance, assessed valuation, or population in addition to the OTIA III transfer. He was not optimistic that any progress could be made on that matter. He suggested that the term "street maintenance fee" should be used in lieu of TSMF to more clearly identify the intent of the fee. Mr. Meisner noted that the progressive community joined the Chamber and County Commissioners in opposition to the TSMF. Mr. Meisner stated he was not prepared to support the staff recommendation until more detailed figures were available to illustrate the impact on business and residential taxpayers. He expressed concern that any action taken by the current council could be affected by future increases in stormwater maintenance fees. He said he could support a two- or three-cent increase in the gas tax. Mr. Poling said he would support the staff recommendation with the understanding that it was a starting point to allow staff to prepare an ordinance with supporting data to begin a community dialogue. He said the issue should be addressed as a pavement preservation project and that is where the fund should be focused, not on street amenities such as benches. He remarked that he was appreciative of the OTIA HI funds, but hoped the County would participate in making pavement preservation funding a countywide issue with a countywide solution. He agreed with the points made by Mr. Mulligan in his message. He said that the council needed to take action quickly and cautiously. Mr. Pap6 believed that those projects that were "on the ground" were not adequately "celebrated" with signage to identify them as pavement preservation projects funded by the gas tax. Responding to Ms. Taylor's comment, he said the TSMF was back before the council because the council had hoped when it was repealed that the County would come forward and provide a reasonable solution. He also expressed disappointment in the County's response. He thanked the Chamber of Commerce for its support and agreed with the points made by Mr. Mulligan about dedication of the funds to preservation only. He emphasized the need for an uncomplicated TSMF formula. Mr. Corey noted that the preservation projects did have advisory signs at the beginning and end of each project and he appreciated the feedback that they should be more visible. He related that the County MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 2004 Page 4 Work Session