Laserfiche WebLink
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 />and operations and maintenance components. He said nothing would change with regard to existing <br />revenues. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor continued to oppose a TSMF. She noted that the rate of $5.22 per month could apply to a single <br />family home with no cars as well as a home with six expensive cars. She felt that was unfair. She thought a <br />30-unit motel would generate more trips than a home. She said streets should be maintained but there were <br />fairer ways to do that and maintenance should be paid for from the General Fund. She urged tax reform and <br />new sources of revenue for the General Fund and, barring that, a County vehicle registration fee should be <br />considered in cooperation with other jurisdictions. She felt it would be very difficult for some households to <br />pay $5.22 per month and asked why the same amount was charged to every residence. Mr. Corey said it <br />had been a theme of the concept from the beginning that everyone benefited from the transportation <br />system—even those who did not own or drive a car—by virtue of the goods and services received as a result <br />of having a transportation system in place. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed <br />with a public outreach and education effort and to schedule a public hearing on a <br />proposed ordinance establishing a transportation system maintenance fee. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for a motion to extend the time for discussion. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to extend discussion time by ten <br />minutes. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon echoed Mr. Papé’s comments about the importance of maintenance being curb-to-curb to <br />demonstrate effective use of the funds generated by the TSMF. She asked if the split between residential <br />and nonresidential accounts would shift from 50:50, as more homes were developed and more residential <br />accounts paid the fee. Mr. Corey said it was possible but he did not think there would be a significant <br />change in the split between account types. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon expressed concern with the $465,000 cost for EWEB to administer the TSMF. Mr. Corey <br />said that amount was based on an assumption that the cost to collect the TSMF would be about the same as <br />the cost to collect wastewater and stormwater fees; the figure represented payment to a vendor to collect the <br />fee and in-house administrative costs. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly commented that he supported the 2002 version of the TSMF but not the 2004 version and was not <br />certain whether he would support the proposed ordinance. He agreed with Mr. Papé’s suggestion to strike <br />two subsections in the ordinance but pointed out the ordinance as written did provide for maintenance and <br />preservation of sidewalks and off-street bike paths. He said there was no other obvious revenue source for <br />the off-street bike paths. Regarding Ms. Bettman’s question about updated trip generation data, he said that <br />new information was being developed in Portland based on several cities and would be available sometime in <br />2007. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if it was correct that nothing in the proposed ordinance maintained the dedication of <br />existing funds to the purposes for which they were currently being used, such as the dedication of Road <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />