CC Minutes - 11/21/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

of the EWEB riverfront property process. She felt that the rules should be applied consistently to both situations. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Laurence said the Downtown Plan policies cited on page 171 of the agenda packet were adopted into the land use code and were binding. B. WORK SESSION: Update on Street and Lighting Fee Development Public Works Director Kurt Corey provided an overview of recommendations from the council Subcommit- tee on Transportation Funding Solutions, which consisted of a package of five potential new revenue sources to begin to address the shortfall in transportation system funding. He said the recommendations before the council for consideration were a street and bike path lighting fee and a street utility fee based upon parking. Mr. Corey reviewed the list of assumptions for the street utility fee and said the annual revenue target, subject to council direction, was $6.5 million. He said single-family residential units would be assessed $4.50 per month; nonresidential assessments would be calculated on the basis of $4.75 per month per 1,000 square feet of established parking area. He reviewed the list of assumptions for the street and bike path fee and estimated an $850,000 annual revenue target. He said examples of residential rates were $.80 per month for arterials and collectors and $.70 for local areas and multi-family residential assessment would be the same, multiplied by the number of distinct addresses per property; nonresidential rates could be a flat fee or per unit assessment. Mr. Clark was concerned with moving forward with either fee so soon after the voters had defeated the gas tax. He wanted to see the City reach a solution to the entire problem and suggested not discussing the fees until after discussing a bond measure, as that could assure failure of that measure at the polls. He recommended that the entire package of solutions be sent back to the subcommittee for reformulation. He did not want to see the council move forward with a piecemeal approach. Mr. Pryor stated that the subcommittee considered many different options before arriving at its package of recommendations. He did not think it would be useful to reconvene the subcommittee. He agreed that a piecemeal approach could be a problem, but the recommendations had been separated into components because of timing issues. He was willing to discuss presenting an entire package of solutions. He felt the street utility fee would be difficult to sell to the public as a fair and equitable option. He suggested considering assessment of nonresidential properties on a graduated scale based on the fact that only a portion of most parking lots was actively used. Ms. Taylor stated she would not support a street utility fee. She thought it would be fairer to charge by the car and homeowners without a car should not have to pay. She objected to charging special fees for City services and said the council should find ways to raise more General Fund revenue, as street maintenance was the City's responsibility. She said a bond or levy could be presented to the voters. She urged the council to consider a business tax to increase the General Fund and using reserves to pay for streets. Ms. Bettman felt that work on different funding options should move forward in parallel. She was willing to support the fees generally, in concept, but had some concerns with the specifics of the methodology. She supported parking as the nexus for the assessment. She was generally comfortable with the staff recommen- MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2007 Page 3 Work Session