Item 4: Ordinance on Tax on Motor Fuel

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT C Draft Minutes from Public Hearing Held January 14, 2008 6. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealer’s Business License Tax and Repealing Section 3 of Ordinance No. 20337 Ms. Jones asked Director of the Public Works Department, Kurt Corey, to introduce the item. Mr. Corey explained that the hearing sought to solicit public input on whether or not to maintain the status quo with regard to the Eugene gas tax, presently set at 5 cents per gallon. He reviewed the timeline to present; the first 3 cent component of the gas tax was implemented in January, 2003, and an additional 2 cents was added in January, 2005, the latter planned to sunset after three years. He underscored that the backlog of street maintenance was now in excess of $170 million. He said after three years there were no additional state, county, or regional solutions at this point. He noted that the committee convened by the Mayor had confirmed that a gas tax was a fair and equitable component of a comprehensive package of funding solutions. He stated that action on this item was scheduled for January 28. He listed the potential actions the council could take, which ranged from reinstituting the gas tax to taking no action with the 2 cent component subsequently sunsetting. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. William Ivanoff , 1810 Harris Street, #336, noted that fuel stations had indicated a move to rid the City of the tax. He believed the City should save legal and ballot costs by repealing the tax when it sunsets. He averred that automobiles were becoming more fuel efficient while wear and tear of the streets increased. He said every time the City annexed more lane miles for public use the maintenance costs for the City increased while funds did not increase commensurately. He asked if the City Council was willing to “starve” the rest of the City to insure that the people who lived on the edges of the City or outside of it could drive on smooth roads. He asserted that the only people who used roads on the outsides of the City were the people who lived there and their guests. He felt the streets that were closer to the core of the City were used by everyone. He suggested that the City allow the people who lived on the periphery of the City to maintain their own roads as private streets. He said if that was not an option, the City should tax each square foot of parking area and remove minimum parking standards. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, questioned whether there was truly a $170 million backlog. He wondered if a consultant was saying that because he or she wanted money and suggested that the City get a second opinion. He added that turning the cameras on for all city meetings would bring “light to all fiscal issues.” He thought the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) had “all sorts of pork barrel spending that happens.” He felt that it was easy to turn the switch on for the cameras in the McNutt Room. He asserted that the reason the City had a backlog of street repairs was that it had “handed out premiums to developers.” He opined that selling off the parking garages would bring in income to counteract the backlog. He also thought the “nest egg” set aside for a future City Hall should be applied to the backlog. He said the taxpayers would then say “oh gee we’re not hiding money anymore” and they would be more likely support a City Hall project in the future because they perceived that the government was “willing to be straight.” He added that if the backlog of projects was addressed as part of the regular city budget then the City would not “do the Olympics first and then the potholes.” He likened this to “eating dessert before having dinner.”