Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

million was a point in time for what the FY08 budget would be with a revenue target offset by various sources, leaving $4.75 million. He said that the forecast for future years had that figure at between $5 and $5.5 million. Mr. Kelly asked why $5 to $5.5 million was not budgeted initially. Mr. Corey replied it was based on modeling to achieve the FY08 budget revenue target. Mr. Kelly said that the single residence fee was about 80 percent higher than two years ago, which made sense with the higher revenue target. He asked why the 100,000 square foot retail use had gone from approximately $900 per month to under $700 per month. Mr. Corey explained there was a more sophisti- cated pass-by trip calculation than in the past and, together with fewer categories, the 100,000 square foot supermarket was slightly less in the proposed methodology than in the 2004 methodology; similar changes increasing or decreasing rates had occurred in some of the other categories under the current proposal. Mr. Kelly asked what percentage of the $6.75 million would come from residential accounts and what percentage from nonresidential accounts. Mr. Corey stated that as the program stabilized, it would be split about equally between the two types of accounts. Mr. Kelly supposed that the actual load on the road system would have a much different split between residential and nonresidential. He commented that there was a place in the ordinance where the word “may” was used instead of “shall” and asked for staff feedback. Mr. Corey said the City Attorney built flexibility into the language to allow for differing conditions over time. Mr. Kelly observed that it was politically challenging to establish a TSMF and acknowledge that the public cared about wording; flexibility in wording could present problems and if circumstances changed, the council could always amend the ordinance. Mr. Papé remarked that a TSMF had been under consideration for a number of years and he was ready to move forward on a proposal. He noted that the original ordinance was rescinded on the basis of a promise from the County to work with the City on a solution, but there was no solution yet except the gas tax. He agreed with Mr. Kelly that the public wanted specificity in the ordinance in terms of rates and uses and language should not suggest the revenue could be used for other purposes besides curb-to-curb road maintenance. He was interested in whether the subject of a sunset provision would be raised during public hearings. He suggested omitting subsections b and c of Section 7.755 of the proposed ordinance. Ms. Bettman said there had been slippage in the proposed ordinance and agenda item summary in terms of dedicating the funding specifically to maintenance and preservation. She pointed out that the proposed revenue source was based on revenue targets determined by the City Manager at the beginning of the fiscal year; any reductions or discounts meant the money would still be collected, shifting the burden to average homeowners. She emphasized the need to update the household survey that produced trip generations and was surprised that a 100,000 square foot retail building was considered a pass-by instead of a destination. She asked what data was used to modify pass-bys. Mr. Corey said pass-by calculations used the collective experiences of other Oregon cities that have dealt with the same issue; the factor used to generate numbers was an average of other Oregon cities that had developed pass-by rate calculations. Ms. Bettman said that current funding sources such as the Road Fund were dedicated to maintenance and preservation and asked what would happen to that money. Mr. Corey said in terms of budgeting and the forecast, those revenues continued to be used in the same manner and there was a gap in capital preservation MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 6 Work Session