CC Minutes - 10/16/06 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, asked the council to preserve his “right” to provide the council with materials directly prior to meetings. Speaking to the fee, he suggested a license plate that had a pothole be established to support road maintenance. Mr. Vishanoff objected to the money set aside for City Hall. He said that it seemed visionary and “feels smart” but he believed it undermined the public’s trust in govern- ment. He thought if the City spent the $25 million it was holding for a new city hall on street repairs now it would save money in the future. He said that the City had also paid money for repairs that benefited the federal courthouse without compensation from the federal government, and he questioned whether the roads would be used. Mr. Vishanoff called for the reconsideration of what he termed “expensive new two-way streets” and called for a public hearing whenever a street was converted from one-way to two-way. He also opposed the sale of neighborhood parks. Cheryl O’Neill , 24307 High Pass Road, Junction City, Executive Director of Womanspace, said she represented the Human Services Providers Network, which was concerned about the impact of such fees on nonprofit and 501(c)(3) organizations as they were not being exempted in the ordinance. She feared the community was moving away from support for its safety net. Ms. O’Neill said the lowest income people in the community would be affected by a loss of services. She suggested there were precedents for waiving such fees for nonprofit organizations and asked the council to examine that possibility in more detail to mitigate the impact of the fee on those organizations and recognize the social value they were providing. Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Way, concurred with the remarks of the first three speakers. He said the proposed fee did not seem to be sustainable, would not actively discourage the use of roads, and would probably encourage the use of the roads “by the wrong types of peoples.” He suggested that the City should use the revenues from the telecommunications tax in the road right-of-way. Tom Slocum , 1950 Graham Drive, advised the council to listen closely to the chamber’s proposal and discard the fee proposal. He liked the proposal because he would get to vote for it, and he said he would. He thought the best thing about a general obligation bond was that “everybody was in on it.” He said that everyone used the streets and all should pay their share. Mr. Slocum agreed that EWEB’s CILT payment to the City should be considered for use in the right-of-way given what he considered the logical nexus created by EWEB’s use of the streets. Misha Seymour , 1313 Lincoln Street, #307, did not support the proposed fee. He used a puppet represent- ing a property owner to carry on a conversation with himself about his opposition to the fee. He asked what kind of tax was next. Mr. Seymour did not support City tax breaks for business and multi-family residential developments, questioning where the money came from. He questioned how there could be no money for roads. Ann Tattersall , 1385 Bailey Avenue, was opposed to the proposed fee, particularly the residential component. She termed the fee regressive and inequitable and suggested a chewing gum tax would make as much sense. The fee taxed those who made little or no use of the roads. She personally drove little and used a light weight car that did not tear up the streets. She indicated she could support an increase in the gas tax, which she considered more equitable as it would apply to those who actually used the streets. A tax for living in a house in Eugene had nothing to do with a resident’s use of the roads. th Howie Bonnett , 1835 East 28 Avenue, referred to his written testimony, provided to the council earlier. He objected to the proposed tax because it resulted in tax shifting such as that pointed out earlier by the representative of School District 4J. He said that the tax needed to be a tax on use, not on property. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 10 Public Hearing