Laserfiche WebLink
tion; and 3) new streets, enhanced capacity, special projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Corey reviewed the recent history of pavement preservation funding efforts. He dated the most recent <br />effort to September 27, 2004, at which time the council directed staff to return with draft ordinances <br />increasing the local gas tax and establishing a transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF). In October <br />the council decided against proceeding with a TSMF and proceeded with the gas tax increase. A public <br />hearing on the increase was held in December 2004. <br /> <br />Mr. Corey noted the staff response to council questions, included in the agenda item summary as Attach- <br />ment B. He noted that action on the proposed ordinance was tentatively scheduled for January 24. <br /> <br />Mr. Corey called attention to a proposed amendment to the ordinance to increase the Business License Tax <br />for motor fuel dealers by an amount to be determined. The council would determine the increase in the local <br />option gas tax. Staff continued to recommend a two-cent increase as consistent with the recommendations <br />of the Budget Committee. The ordinance as amended would provide a partial refund on certain sales of bulk <br />diesel fuels, which would affect over the road trucking companies located in Eugene. The ordinance change <br />was modeled on Springfield's ordinance. Few of the miles traveled by such businesses were on city streets. <br /> <br />Mr. Corey noted housekeeping amendments proposed for the ordinance, reflected in the draft ordinance <br />provided to the council in the agenda item summary. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy thanked Mr. Corey for his comprehensive update. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked why people who commuted to other cities would not receive a refund on the tax. Mr. <br />Corey said that many people, such as tourists, could make the case that they would not be traveling on city <br />streets and could argue for a refund. He thought the case of the trucking community was unique. Mr. <br />Corey believed that if the City did not provide refunds to the trucking industry, it would put the community <br />at a competitive disadvantage with Springfield, which did provide such refunds in its ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if a local vehicle registration fee could provide adequate transportation funding. Mr. <br />Corey said yes, if the State legislature lifted its preemption. He noted that even with the adoption of an <br />increase in the local option gas tax, the City still had a funding gap. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor called for a discussion of bonding to fund pavement maintenance and upgrades. She noted that <br />she was still undecided about an increase in the gas tax. She did not support passing an ordinance that gave <br />staff the ability to raise the tax without council action. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon asked staff what other strategies it had to close the funding gap given that the two-cent gas tax <br />increase would be insufficient, and to what extent was Lane County ready to listen to Eugene again. She <br />asked what other Lane County communities were doing. Mr. Corey suggested that as a strategy, the City <br />continue to pursue the work it had been doing over the past five years. He personally believed that the <br />ultimate solution was a locally controlled, fee-based system that would resemble a transportation utility fee, <br />such as the previously considered TSMF. He said there may be other options staff had not looked at. He <br />acknowledged that whatever was proposed, it could compete with other City priorities, and encouraged the <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />