Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

would realize. Mr. Corey anticipated it would realize about $300,000. Councilor Poling asked if the City had that much work to do on the bicycle path that totaled that amount. Mr. Corey did not know, and said that the City was approaching the maintenance level of the road system on its off-street paths. Councilor Poling said when he talked about “curb-to-curb,” he was talking about the part of the road that cars traveled on. However, he would not object to earmarking a specific amount to off-street bicycle paths in the ordinance. He said the ordinance was vague on that point and it appeared the money could be spent anywhere. Councilor Kelly referred to the rate making standards on page 2 of the ordinance and the reference that the fee “may be based” on those identified components. He suggested that the word “may” be changed to “shall.” In regard to the equitability of the fee, Councilor Kelly believed that the fee would be more equitable if the base and administration elements were related to trip generation rates. Councilor Kelly said the gas tax moneys had been spent exclusively on road repair. He said that roads that might not appear to need preservation overlay received one to extend their life cycle and avoid the need to reconstruct the road. Councilor Taylor indicated support for spending money on bicycle paths but said she did not support the fee because it was not equitable. Those with a small house, no car, and little income would pay the same as a wealthy resident with many cars living in a big house. Councilor Taylor liked the concept of funding roads through the General Fund as a basic service. She called for a general discussion of the taxation system. Councilor Taylor did not support an increase in the local gas tax because people would drive to other communities to buy gas. Councilor Taylor also liked the idea of bonding to address part of the backlog. She said that the cost of roads that needed to be rebuilt, such as Crest Drive, would still be assessed to residents under the current proposal, and they would need to pay $5 monthly for the fee as well. She suggested that the City could include those roads in the projects to be funded through a bond. Councilor Bettman did not support a shift of General Fund revenues to pay for streets given that such funds were needed for other purposes. People who paid the gas tax expected the government would use the revenue to fix potholes. She maintained that would be the “quintessential double-dipping.” She suggested that those who argued for a general obligation bond for street preservation and the use of General Fund revenues for that purpose had also supported Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) I, II, and III projects, which were predicated on bonding against future increases in the registration fee, and Connect Oregon projects, which were predicated on bonding against lottery revenues. She maintained that systems development charge revenues were artificially low and the City did not have sufficient funding to pay for the new capacity it was building, so the City was shifting funding in order to pay for new capacity. Councilor Papé shared Councilor Kelly’s frustration at the council’s inability to find a solution to the street funding problem and said he did not want to pass the problem on to his children and grandchildren. He hoped the council could find a solution and was glad that all those who offered testimony recognized that there was a problem. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 13 Public Hearing