My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2006
>
CC Agenda - 09/11/06 Meeting
>
Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:07:41 PM
Creation date
9/7/2006 11:23:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
9/11/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
million was a point in time for what the FY08 budget would be with a revenue target offset by various <br />sources, leaving $4.75 million. He said that the forecast for future years had that figure at between $5 and <br />$5.5 million. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked why $5 to $5.5 million was not budgeted initially. Mr. Corey replied it was based on <br />modeling to achieve the FY08 budget revenue target. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the single residence fee was about 80 percent higher than two years ago, which made <br />sense with the higher revenue target. He asked why the 100,000 square foot retail use had gone from <br />approximately $900 per month to under $700 per month. Mr. Corey explained there was a more sophisti- <br />cated pass-by trip calculation than in the past and, together with fewer categories, the 100,000 square foot <br />supermarket was slightly less in the proposed methodology than in the 2004 methodology; similar changes <br />increasing or decreasing rates had occurred in some of the other categories under the current proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked what percentage of the $6.75 million would come from residential accounts and what <br />percentage from nonresidential accounts. Mr. Corey stated that as the program stabilized, it would be split <br />about equally between the two types of accounts. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supposed that the actual load on the road system would have a much different split between <br />residential and nonresidential. He commented that there was a place in the ordinance where the word “may” <br />was used instead of “shall” and asked for staff feedback. Mr. Corey said the City Attorney built flexibility <br />into the language to allow for differing conditions over time. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly observed that it was politically challenging to establish a TSMF and acknowledge that the public <br />cared about wording; flexibility in wording could present problems and if circumstances changed, the <br />council could always amend the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé remarked that a TSMF had been under consideration for a number of years and he was ready to <br />move forward on a proposal. He noted that the original ordinance was rescinded on the basis of a promise <br />from the County to work with the City on a solution, but there was no solution yet except the gas tax. He <br />agreed with Mr. Kelly that the public wanted specificity in the ordinance in terms of rates and uses and <br />language should not suggest the revenue could be used for other purposes besides curb-to-curb road <br />maintenance. He was interested in whether the subject of a sunset provision would be raised during public <br />hearings. He suggested omitting subsections b and c of Section 7.755 of the proposed ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said there had been slippage in the proposed ordinance and agenda item summary in terms of <br />dedicating the funding specifically to maintenance and preservation. She pointed out that the proposed <br />revenue source was based on revenue targets determined by the City Manager at the beginning of the fiscal <br />year; any reductions or discounts meant the money would still be collected, shifting the burden to average <br />homeowners. She emphasized the need to update the household survey that produced trip generations and <br />was surprised that a 100,000 square foot retail building was considered a pass-by instead of a destination. <br />She asked what data was used to modify pass-bys. Mr. Corey said pass-by calculations used the collective <br />experiences of other Oregon cities that have dealt with the same issue; the factor used to generate numbers <br />was an average of other Oregon cities that had developed pass-by rate calculations. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that current funding sources such as the Road Fund were dedicated to maintenance and <br />preservation and asked what would happen to that money. Mr. Corey said in terms of budgeting and the <br />forecast, those revenues continued to be used in the same manner and there was a gap in capital preservation <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.