CCMinutes - 10/27/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TSMF. She said the council should be looking for another revenue source. Ms. Taylor would only approve a motion to refer the issue to the voters. In response to Ms. Taylor's comments, Mr. Corey clarified that in his response to her e-mail question, he pointed out a council majority adopted the initial ordinance and then a council majority repealed the ordinance primarily, not exclusively, because of concerns expressed by the chamber. He said he would not characterize the chamber as now supporting the ordinance because he did not know if it did. Mr. Kelly supported taking the gas tax increase to a public hearing. Speaking to the issue of the TSMF, he said the rates associated with the fee were crucial to the discussion. He had defended the previous TSMF ordinance on the basis the rates were based on science. Now the newly proposed TSMF raised two-thirds the amount the former TSMF had been projected to raise. The rate charged to a single-family house had not changed, but the rates charged to commercial users, such as Wal-Mart, had dropped dramatically. Mr. Kelly said for that reason, he could not support the ordinance. He said the change seemed like a conscious tax shift from businesses to individuals, and he could not support that. Mr. Kelly indicated he would consider the ordinance if the rates were revised. Ms. Nathanson appreciated the completeness of the meeting packet materials and presentation. However, she was disappointed by the lack of information about what occurred between the repeal and reconsideration of the TSMF. She noted community opposition and Springfield's decision not to proceed with a TSMF, which had influenced her decision to support the repeal of the fee. She said chamber members she spoke with indicated support of the TSMF with a different rate structure. Ms. Nathanson asked what had happened, as she thought there was to a good faith effort between the concerned parties to change the way the fee was received by the public. In response, Mr. Corey said there was an effort by the chamber, Lane County, the City, and many others to talk about transportation funding alternatives. He characterized the results as a bit disappointing since no new revenue ideas had come forward and other ideas were not pursued, although Lane County had agreed to transfer its component of the Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) 3 moneys to the cities. Ms. Bettman noted her continued opposition to the use of STP-U funds on the Friendly Street Bicycle Project and said such projects were demonstrative of why she could not support a TSMF or gas tax devoted to maintenance and preservation. As long as the City allocated funding that could be used for preservation on new projects, she would oppose such taxes. The project in question was mostly signage and striping. In response, Mr. Corey explained the funding discrepancies Ms. Bettman raised regarding the Friendly Street project. Ms. Bettman noted that the charts provided to the council regarding the gas tax were not comparable as one was based on a four-cent tax and one was based on a five-cent tax. Ms. Bettman said when the council repealed the TSMF it was because of the chamber's threat to send it to the ballot. That gave the chamber the exclusive ability to negotiate lower rates for big business at the expense of everyone else in the community. Ms. Bettman thought the timeline being proposed was not sufficient to inform the public as it did not take into consideration the upcoming holidays. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 10 Work Session