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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Solomon, a member of the Budget Citizen Subcommittee, which developed the recommendation leading to adoption of the TSMF, said the subcommittee had been balanced, reviewed the problem in a thoughtful and deliberative way, and made a reasonable recommendation for multiple sources of revenue to the council. The TSMF was one of many tools the City wanted to package for a predictable revenue source for transportation funding. Ms. Solomon said the TSMF could be smaller if the County would give Eugene more money. She pointed out that nine communities in Oregon had adopted such a fee without a problem. She believed the problems related to TSMF could be addressed and the fee tailored to Eugene. She was willing to address objections to the fee so the fee could be modified to be more palatable to its opponents. Ms. Solomon expressed concern that the County expected Eugene to repeal the fee before a funding solution had been found. She did not think that the County would negotiate with Eugene if their positions were reversed. She had heard no better option from the County and apparently the City would hear none until Eugene rescinded its fee. She did not believe the County would consider a countywide gas tax, noting three cities in the county had passed one already. The County would not increase the vehicle registration fee because the State had already done so. Ms. Solomon said that the federal dollars distributed by the County to the cities were not guaranteed after 2006, and given current forest management practices, the City would not realize the funding that had been received previously. She did not support a repeal of the TSMF but would support its postponement. Mr. Kelly indicated his concurrence with the Ms. Solomon's remarks. Repealing the fee would be to ignore the years of work done by the subcommittee and the council, as well as the community process that had occurred. He noted that no changes to the fee had been requested by the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce at the time of the fee's adoption. Mr. Kelly did not see why Eugene should repeal its fee before the County committed to an alternative funding solution. Mr. Kelly said that while there were not droves of citizens rallying to support the fee, they would rally to complain if the roads continued to degrade. The backlog would only to continue to grow if the problems were not addressed, leading to the need for even more money. He expressed interest in discussions with the County and Springfield on alternatives that yielded a sufficient amount of money. He would support a repeal of the fee when the City had an alternative, but was not willing to discard the fee without more information. Mr. Poling was not willing to have a TSMF unless both cities had a fee. Since Springfield had repealed the fee, Eugene should do the same to "level the playing field." He said that the elected officials of the three jurisdictions should demonstrate to the voters that the three bodies could work together. He said that the County should be given an opportunity to come up with a solution. Eugene could work toward its own solution if the County was unable to help to develop one. He did not think the fee as currently configured was equitable. Mr. Poling asserted that three members of the Budget Citizen Subcommittee had expressed concern about the way the fee was being implemented. Mr. Meisner expressed dismay that no County representative was present for the discussion. He supported a repeal of the fee at this time because once repealed by the voters, the council would lose the fee as a potential tool. Mr. Meisner noted that within their city limits, Eugene and Springfield have 60 percent of the population of Lane County, and an assessed value that almost precisely equaled that percentage. However, when one looked at expenditures for animal control or distribution of road funds, one MINUTES -Eugene City Council August 11, 2003 Page 9 Work Session