Laserfiche WebLink
postponed until it was triggered by a remedy implemented by the State or County that would satisfy the <br />City’s funding need. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jerry Lidz stated that the council could amend the ordinance but it could not make the <br />sunset date contingent upon the action of another government body. He said the council could extend or <br />repeal the sunset. He explained that it was a constitutional principle that a governmental body could not <br />delegate its legislative authority to the legislature. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman requested ordinance language that would extend the tax by three years, indicating that <br />this would be enough time to see if there were other remedies at the State and/or County level. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark was pleased to hear Mr. Romain indicate he would be willing to work toward a statewide <br />solution. He heard that the gas tax was not the right funding solution but that those in opposition to the <br />tax were committed to finding the right one. He agreed that it was a larger issue than an individual <br />revenue stream and that it was a larger core service issue. He believed that there was money in the City’s <br />budget but it was not being spent as people expected it to be spent. He felt that people wanted the City to <br />“deal with at least some of this problem” with the money that it had. He was somewhat concerned that <br />repealing the sunset would cause there to be two political fights at the same time: one to keep the $1.4 <br />million and the other to pass a bond which could potentially generate tens of millions of dollars. He was <br />inclined to believe that it would be wiser for the City to seek short-term solutions with the money it <br />already had. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka stated that the gas tax could only be used on road maintenance by law. He felt that <br />anyone who mistrusted the city government should stand “rest assured” that it would be illegal to spend it <br />on other things. He acknowledged that the gas tax was tough for people on fixed and low incomes but <br />this was not an increase, it was maintaining the status quo. In response to those who said the council <br />should listen to the voters he wished to point out that the voters in Wards 1, 2, and 3 voted <br />“overwhelmingly” in support of the gas tax increase. He thought it likely they would do the same in a <br />vote to maintain the existing tax. He questioned whether the gas tax was truly the cause of all gas station <br />owners’ woes. He noted that he sat on the Metropolitan Policy Committee and observed that Oregon <br />Department of Transportation funds to every part of the state were being cut because the revenues from <br />the gas tax had been declining. He attributed this to the increase in efficiency in cars. He stated that the 5 <br />cent gas tax had already paid for $16.5 million in road maintenance over the past few years. He disputed <br />any assertion that the backlog did not exist, adding that anyone who thought so should “just drive <br />around.” He averred that the City had been “abandoned by the feds and abandoned by the State” and this <br />was why the City had pursued a funding solution on the local level. He was skeptical that a “petroleum <br />guy” would help promote a statewide increase in the gas tax. He asserted that half of the people who used <br />the roads in the City of Eugene did not help to pay for the roads in property taxes. <br /> <br />Councilor Poling believed the City needed a concentrated effort to get all of the cities on board in support <br />of either a countywide gas tax or to submit something to the State. He believed that everyone needed to <br />work in unison. He recalled that he and some other Budget Committee members had attempted to utilize <br />some of the money that had been saved for the proposed City Hall complex to address the transportation <br />infrastructure issue. He related that it had not “gone over well.” He suggested that everyone who was <br />opposed to a gas tax to come and testify before the Budget Committee, asking that some of that money be <br />utilized to make up for the money that the City would not be getting if the 2 cent tax was repealed. He <br />noted that Councilor Taylor had oft suggested the institution of a countywide vehicle registration fee. He <br />thought the time might be right to look into that. <br />Councilor Taylor expressed appreciation for the offers to help promote a funding solution at the <br />legislative level. She reiterated her support for a vehicle registration fee. She agreed with Mr. Bonnett’s <br />suggestion to extend the 2 cent tax for three more years. <br /> <br />