CC Minutes - 08/13/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

playing field between the two cities, to fix the flaws in the formula, and develop a package of funding sources to support transportation projects. Mr. Poling favored repealing the TSMF, not because of threats from the County, but because the original intent of the fee was that both cities would have one. Springfield had repealed its fee. He called for a regional dialogue to reach a countywide solution. He acknowledged the difficulty of the issue but indicated optimism that any obstacles could be overcome. He thanked Mr. Green for attending the meeting and for talking to councilors individually. Ms. Taylor indicated support for the motion. She agreed the problem was regional and needed a regional solution. She believed other communities wanted to help Eugene because their residents used Eugene roads. She thought the City had given up too soon on a regional solution. She believed a variety of funding sources should be used. Ms. Taylor called for the cessation of new road construction to save money. Ms. Solomon indicated her willingness to be part of any solution. She asked if it was possible a regional solution could be reached by year's end. Mr. Green responded that the County was willing to participate and partner in a solution. He assured the council that he preferred to advocate for Eugene as one of two urban representatives on the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Solomon said that she was looking for a funding package and allocation formula, and wanted to know if it was reasonable to assume that could be accomplished by 2004. Mr. Green was optimistic that could happen. Mr. Pap8 believed that repealing the fee would be to foreclose its later use. He thanked Mr. Green for attending the meeting, and asked if the two cities had not approached the County prior to enacting the TSMF for a solution. Mr. Green said that was the case, but the County had six measures on the ballot in November 2002, and the board's position at that time was that the timing was not right. He had also personally wanted to see what the State legislature did in terms of transportation funding. Mr. Pap8 said that the cities had also approached the County a year prior to that. Mr. Green said that the board did not believe at that time that it could ask the residents to support a countywide gas tax because of the Road Fund reserves that existed. He thought that it was more possible to make a case to the public now that the need existed and the funding was needed. Mr. Pap8 asked if Mr. Green could commit the other County commissioners to a dialogue. Mr. Green believed that he could provide written assurances that discussion would happen. Mr. Pap8 said that it was his understanding that the County had not been open to a community discussion. Mr. Green said that it was not the board's intent to close dialogue and he was convinced the other board members were interested in a regional dialogue. Mr. Pap8 said he would be interested in seeing that commitment in writing. Mr. Green noted that he had an 18-year history of the County's road fund contributions to the City. He again questioned what Eugene's funding priorities were. If its priorities were for maintenance and preservation, the City could have requested funding for that purpose, rather than funding to reopen Broadway to traffic. He said he would like to discuss those priorities in a broader context. Mr. Pap8 suggested that in the context of that discussion, the parties also discuss the tax dollars paid by Eugene residents that were received by the County and whether Eugene was receiving a proportional amount. He acknowledged the County's past contributions but questioned whether funds were allocated proportionally. It was his perception that the smaller cities had received a greater proportion of dollars than Eugene-Springfield. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 13, 2003 Page 2 Work Session