Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Meisner shared Ms. Nathanson's interest in an analysis of what happened since the repeal. He said he was unsure he would characterize the discussions with Lane County and the chamber as happening in good faith; the previous evening he had received an e-mail from Commissioner Peter Sorenson expressing hope that Eugene would devote some lobbying efforts to the reauthorization of the County forest payments legislation. He had responded that Eugene would be more likely to lobby for that when incorporated cities were treated as part of Lane County in regard to the use of those funds. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to divide the question. The motion to divide passed unanimously, 8:0. The motion on the floor was as follows: Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the City Manager to pursue Option 3 as outlined in the Agenda Item Summary. Mr. Pap6 acknowledged the work done by staff and shared his disappointment that the County had not been forthcoming with its Road Fund dollars. While he appreciated the OTIA money, he would have let the County keep it if the County shared the Road Fund dollars with Lane County cities for use on maintenance and preservation. Mr. Pap6 was disappointed at the County's opposition and lack of creativity in moving a solution to the problem of transportation funding forward. Speaking to the issue of bonding, which would be paid for by property owners rather than all users of the transportation system, Mr. Papb questioned whether any option covered all users. He suggested that the TSMF was similar in that sense. Mr. Corey disagreed, and suggested the council discuss the issue later. Ms. Solomon supported the TSMF and said the fee was a fair one. It applied to all who benefited from the road. She said it was also a long-range solution to the issue of transportation funding that had been implemented in at least nine other Oregon communities. If the council established the ordinance it would not have to revisit the issue because it would have set the revenue target and established the revenue sources. Ms. Solomon said roads benefit all citizens and the council had a role in stewarding the City's investment. She suggested that if the council did not support the TSMF, it should bump the proposed gas tax increase to seven cents. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion related to Option 3 by putting the gas tax increase on the ballot at the earliest available opportunity. The amend- ment to the motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by increasing the gas tax increase to four cents. Mr. Kelly appreciated Ms. Solomon's motion but did not think a four-cent increase would be sufficient. He suggested a six-cent increase would be more appropriate. Ms. Nathanson pointed out-that the amount of any gas tax increase could be changed after the public hearing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 11 Work Session