Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

were committed to finding the right one. He agreed that it was a larger issue than an individual revenue stream and that it was a larger core service issue. He believed that there was money in the City’s budget but it was not being spent as people expected it to be spent. He felt that people wanted the City to “deal with at least some of this problem” with the money that it had. He was somewhat concerned that repealing the sunset would cause there to be two political fights at the same time: one to keep the $1.4 million and the other to pass a bond which could potentially generate tens of millions of dollars. He was inclined to believe that it would be wiser for the City to seek short-term solutions with the money it already had. Councilor Zelenka stated that the gas tax could only be used on road maintenance by law. He felt that anyone who mistrusted the City government should “rest assured” that it would be illegal to spend it on other things. He acknowledged that the gas tax was tough for people on fixed and low incomes but this was not an increase, it was maintaining the status quo. In response to those who said the council should listen to the voters he wished to point out that the voters in Wards 1, 2, and 3 voted “overwhelmingly” in support of the gas tax increase. He thought it likely they would do the same in a vote to maintain the existing tax. He questioned whether the gas tax was truly the cause of all gas station owners’ woes. He noted that he sat on the Metropolitan Policy Committee and observed that Oregon Department of Transportation funds to every part of the state were being cut because the revenues from the gas tax had been declining. He attributed this to the increase in efficiency in cars. He stated that the 5 cent gas tax had already paid for $16.5 million in road maintenance over the past few years. He disputed any assertion that the backlog did not exist, adding that anyone who thought so should “just drive around.” He averred that the City had been “abandoned by the feds and abandoned by the State” and this was why the City had pursued a funding solution on the local level. He was skeptical that a “petroleum guy” would help promote a statewide increase in the gas tax. He asserted that half of the people who used the roads in the City of Eugene did not help to pay for the roads in property taxes. Councilor Poling believed the City needed a concentrated effort to get all of the cities on board in support of either a countywide gas tax or to submit something to the State. He believed that everyone needed to work in unison. He recalled that he and some other Budget Committee members had attempted to utilize some of the money that had been saved for the proposed City Hall complex to address the transportation infrastruc- ture issue. He related that it had not “gone over well.” He suggested that everyone who was opposed to a gas tax come and testify before the Budget Committee, asking that some of that money be utilized to make up for the money that the City would not be getting if the 2 cent tax was repealed. He noted that Councilor Taylor had often suggested the institution of a countywide vehicle registration fee. He thought the time might be right to look into that. Councilor Taylor expressed appreciation for the offers to help promote a funding solution at the legislative level. She reiterated her support for a vehicle registration fee. She agreed with Mr. Bonnett’s suggestion to extend the 2 cent tax for three more years. Councilor Bettman noted that the City Council was holding a public hearing on February 19 on the timing of ballots. She wished to alert those who might ultimately place the 2 cent tax on a ballot, should it not be sunsetted. The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 14, 2008 Page 12 Regular Meeting