CCMinutes - 09/27/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor said she could consider asking the voters if they wanted to support a bond action, but preferred to see new road or road upgrading included. Ms. Bettman said she preferred Mr. Pap6's approach to that of simply raising taxes by increasing the gas tax and charging a fee. She said the community would be included in the discussion of priorities and voters could make their choices. City Manager Taylor said that if the amendment passed, staff would be able to produce materials for a general discussion of bonding vehicles available to address funding needs. Mr. Meisner asked if Mr. Pap6 was proposing a bond alternative for the entire backlog of projects. Mr. Pap6 said that it could be the sole alternative or in combination with the gas tax. He agreed with City Manager Taylor's suggestion for a general discussion of revenue bond approaches. Ms. Taylor said it was important to her that people be able to vote on whatever type of bond was proposed. Mr. Kelly asked what other sources besides property taxes could be used for a revenue bond. Mr. Corey said that revenues from a TSMF or local gas tax could be used. City Manager Taylor said that the bond could also be used to specifically identify those things for which the TSMF or gas tax revenues could be exclusively used. Mr. Kelly stated that he would oppose the amendment as he felt there was less clarity to the direction to staff. Mr. Pap6 said he would not support a bond that was backed by TSMF revenue. He said that bonding was more straightforward and streets were shared by many users and benefited the entire community, not just those with automobiles. Ms. Bettman said she would not support a bond that was supported by a TSMF or any type of fee revenue source. She said that she could only support a bond that allowed voters to vote to incur a tax. She observed that if the amendment failed because it was not sufficiently specific about the revenue sources, the council had an opportunity to defeat the main motion and direct staff to bring back information on different bonding mechanisms for discussion. The motion to amend passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, and Ms. Na- thanson voting in opposition. Ms. Nathanson stated that she supported multiple revenue sources wherever possible because it helped balance the burden and the ability to afford certain types of projects or services. She said that if only one or two primary revenue sources were used, a poor year for that type of revenue would jeopardize the programs or projects that were funded. She used sales taxes and property taxes as examples of revenue sources that could be affected by things such as Internet sales and property tax limitations. Ms. Nathanson said broadening revenue across different categories, particularly consumption-based taxes, made it more likely that everyone contributed to the cost of providing public services and facilities. She said she supported multiple revenue sources by continuing the gas tax and adding a TSMF. She also expressed regret that the County and other cities in Lane County were not looking at a countywide vehicle registration fee to continue to broaden the revenue sources. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 2004 Page 6 Work Session