CC Minutes - 08/11/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would assume the two cities do not exist in Lane County. If they wanted animal control, City taxpayers were required to pay twice for that service. He said the situation must be improved. Mr. Meisner hoped Eugene and Springfield were united when they negotiated with Lane County for a more fair revenue distribution formula. Mr. Meisner saw no merit to placing a moratorium on the fee. Ms. Bettman indicated interest in referring the fee to the ballot. She said that much energy was going into making the County a scapegoat. Certain commissioners were invited to attend and view the discussion rather than participate in it, and she speculated that they were watching on TV. Ms. Bettman said that the City was co-dependent with the County and received "tens of millions of dollars" from the County in Road Fund dollars that City staff and a council majority preferred to allocate to new expenditures rather than spend on operations, maintenance, and preservation. She wanted more County money but she also wanted to prioritize currently allocated dollars to fund operations, maintenance, and preservation of the existing system. She said that the existing system should be preserved before new projects were done. Ms. Bettman said she opposed the fee from the beginning. If the council was to assess the fee, it should place the fee in front of the voters. She would support the fee if it was supported by the voters. Ms. Bettman said her concern about the current process was her fear that the Chamber of Commerce was bluffing through its threat to put the fee on the ballot because it wanted the City to back off from the way that it was administered, and the result would be a modified fee that would transfer the burden from businesses to residents. Ms. Taylor noted her own opposition to the fee. She did not think the council had adequately talked with the County about transportation funding. She agreed with Ms. Bettman's comments about the need to fund operations, maintenance, and preservation. She also agreed with Mr. Meisner about the potential the fee would be repealed. She supported repealing the fee and called for discussions with Springfield and Lane County. Ms. Taylor also favored placing a moratorium on any new construction until the community could afford it. Mr. Pap~ indicated his concurrence with Ms. Solomon and Mr. Kelly. He said that he had discussed the issue with County commissioners and urged their action. In fact, the council postponed action pending a solution from the County. He said that from past history he had little faith in what Mr. Poling hoped would occur. Mr. Pap~ endorsed the community process that led to adoption of the TSMF and noted the large funding backlog that existed. He did not like the TSMF but thought the City needed to get at the problem in some way. He had heard no other solutions that people supported. Mr. Pap~ suggested that a "bird in the hand was worth two in the bush," and that the fee should be retained until a viable alternative was proposed. Mayor Torrey said that he had not initially supported the TSMF because he had wanted to work with the County and Springfield on alternative methods of generating revenues. However, in October 2002 the Board of County Commissioners had indicated unwillingness to discuss the issue. For that reason, he supported going forward with the TSMF. He acknowledged the fee was a tax that cost residents money. However, he pointed out that all those discussing the issue acknowledged the need that existed. There was a cost associated with transportation that must MINUTES-Eugene City Council August 11, 2003 Page 10 Work Session