Laserfiche WebLink
countywide gas tax. He wanted staff to prepare language for a nonbinding resolution to the commissioners <br />asking for consideration of a countywide gas tax that would keep Eugene whole. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said he was satisfied with a $.03 tax as a part of the larger package. He said a countywide tax <br />of $.05 in conjunction with Eugene's $.03 tax was required to generate the necessary funding. He agreed <br />with Mr. Clark that the entire funding package should be on the ballot to determine public support for fixing <br />the roads. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said he would support the $.03 gas tax if there were a clear understanding that it would be <br />repealed if a countywide gas tax that left the City harmless were passed. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed with repealing the ordinance and referring the $.03 gas tax to the voters. She was not in <br />favor of referring a larger gas tax, such as $.04. She was opposed to placing other parts of the funding <br />package on the ballot. She expressed interest in a countywide vehicle registration fee and felt it would be <br />supported as every community was facing the need to repair streets. She thought if a county gas tax was <br />passed Eugene could repeal a portion of its gas tax. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that the current code <br />automatically repealed $.02 of the current gas tax on February 26, 2008, and the council had three choices: <br />repeal that provision of the code, allow the sunset to take effect and lose that $.02 tax or refer the sunset <br />repeal to the voters. He said in order to retain the $.02 tax, the sunset provision would have to be repealed <br />by either the council or the voters. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman pointed out that the County had experienced difficulty passing funding measures and asked if a <br />countywide tax would be enacted by ordinance or referred to the voters. Ms. Jones said that had not been <br />determined. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not believe the City was "whole" currently and it was necessary to act on the City's behalf <br />now and negotiate with the County from a position of strength. Regarding a registration fee, she noted the <br />State had already doubled registration fees and bonded on future revenue and that was not a progressive <br />approach to funding road maintenance as those with a $500 car paid the same as someone with a very <br />expensive vehicle. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager in November to pro- <br />ceed with Option 3b to enact the sunset repeal and refer the $.03 gas tax increase. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said in an ideal situation he would prefer to see the entire package on the ballot but realized that <br />was not practical as the voters could choose among components or defeat the entire package. He said there <br />would need to be considerable discussion around other components such as a road utility fee and logistically <br />that could not be referred to a vote in November. He wanted to act to refer the gas tax to the ballot quickly <br />and the motion was the appropriate course of action. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka hoped that the discussion of holding the City harmless meant that a countywide tax of $.08 was <br />enacted, at which point the City could repeal its $.03 tax. He asked if it was feasible to refer the entire <br />funding package as a single ballot measure. Mr. Klein replied that it would be difficult because of the <br />differences in the funding mechanisms, but he would research the matter. He said it would be possible to <br />have separate, but linked ballot measures that were dependent on mutual passage. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 8, 2007 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />