Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

and operations and maintenance components. He said nothing would change with regard to existing revenues. Ms. Taylor continued to oppose a TSMF. She noted that the rate of $5.22 per month could apply to a single family home with no cars as well as a home with six expensive cars. She felt that was unfair. She thought a 30-unit motel would generate more trips than a home. She said streets should be maintained but there were fairer ways to do that and maintenance should be paid for from the General Fund. She urged tax reform and new sources of revenue for the General Fund and, barring that, a County vehicle registration fee should be considered in cooperation with other jurisdictions. She felt it would be very difficult for some households to pay $5.22 per month and asked why the same amount was charged to every residence. Mr. Corey said it had been a theme of the concept from the beginning that everyone benefited from the transportation system—even those who did not own or drive a car—by virtue of the goods and services received as a result of having a transportation system in place. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with a public outreach and education effort and to schedule a public hearing on a proposed ordinance establishing a transportation system maintenance fee. Mayor Piercy called for a motion to extend the time for discussion. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to extend discussion time by ten minutes. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. Ms. Solomon echoed Mr. Papé’s comments about the importance of maintenance being curb-to-curb to demonstrate effective use of the funds generated by the TSMF. She asked if the split between residential and nonresidential accounts would shift from 50:50, as more homes were developed and more residential accounts paid the fee. Mr. Corey said it was possible but he did not think there would be a significant change in the split between account types. Ms. Solomon expressed concern with the $465,000 cost for EWEB to administer the TSMF. Mr. Corey said that amount was based on an assumption that the cost to collect the TSMF would be about the same as the cost to collect wastewater and stormwater fees; the figure represented payment to a vendor to collect the fee and in-house administrative costs. Mr. Kelly commented that he supported the 2002 version of the TSMF but not the 2004 version and was not certain whether he would support the proposed ordinance. He agreed with Mr. Papé’s suggestion to strike two subsections in the ordinance but pointed out the ordinance as written did provide for maintenance and preservation of sidewalks and off-street bike paths. He said there was no other obvious revenue source for the off-street bike paths. Regarding Ms. Bettman’s question about updated trip generation data, he said that new information was being developed in Portland based on several cities and would be available sometime in 2007. Ms. Bettman asked if it was correct that nothing in the proposed ordinance maintained the dedication of existing funds to the purposes for which they were currently being used, such as the dedication of Road Fund reimbursement fee for operations, maintenance, and some preservation. Mr. Corey responded that dedicated revenues that were only available for certain purposes without the ordinance would have no change in status based on passage of the ordinance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 7 Work Session