Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioners had a joint meeting with the Veneta City Council and were unable to attend the work <br />session. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that many people did not realize that the historic funding sources for street preservation <br />had diminished or not kept pace with inflation and that property taxes were not used for street mainte- <br />nance. He commented that he had previously supported the gas tax and TSMF and would likely do so <br />again if the ordinance was substantially similar to that which came before the council in 2002. He <br />cautioned that the motion was the start of the process and it was necessary to obtain community support, <br />particularly from the chamber. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that regardless of what terminology was used, the TSMF was a tax and with the $2 <br />million from the existing gas tax would represent a $6.5 million tax increase, the largest burden would fall <br />on residents of the City. She said the issue should go to the ballot. She stated that the City should be mn <br />like a household, not a business, and the first priority should be preserving assets instead of expansion. <br />She said she did not believe that asset preservation through road maintenance had been a long-term City <br />priority. She said that she voted against new road projects because they contained funds that could be <br />used to preserve the existing street system. She said the TSMF was repealed the last time because the <br />Chamber of Commerce threatened to put the issue on the ballot. <br /> <br /> Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> return to the City Council prior to the end of the calendar year with draft <br /> ordinances increasing the local motor vehicle fuel tax by an additional <br /> two cents (to five cents per gallon) and establishing a Transportation Sys- <br /> tem Maintenance Fee. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 asked if Springfield had been able to fill the gap in transportation funding with OTIA III funds <br />transferred by the County. Mr. Corey said a major difference was the comparative size of the backlog of <br />deferred maintenance between Springfield and Eugene. Springfield Public Works Director Dan Brown <br />explained that the Springfield City Council had set a target of $1.6 million in additional revenue and <br />$900,000 was to come from the TSMF. He said that federal surface transportation funding combined with <br />OTIA III funds and the County OTIA III transfer funds equaled $900,000 and the target was met. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion to in- <br /> clude direction to staff to return to the City Council with a potential bond- <br /> ing proposal as an option to address pavement preservation and the back- <br /> log of deferred maintenance. <br /> <br />In response to a question from City Manager Taylor, Mr. Pap6 said the funding mechanism should be a <br />general obligation bond. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he could not support the amendment because of his concern about adding another <br />fundamental City program to the programs that would be placed before the voters for property tax bonds. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor said she could consider asking the voters if they wanted to Support a bond action, but preferred <br /> to see new road or road upgrading included. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman said she preferred Mr. Pap6's approach to that of simply raising taxes by increasing the gas <br /> tax and charging a fee. She said the community would be included in the discussion of priorities and <br /> voters could make their choices. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 2004 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />