My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 04/24/02 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2002
>
CC Minutes - 04/24/02 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:28:20 AM
Creation date
8/1/2005 12:12:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
discomfort with a countywide vehicle registration fee as a primary funding method, given that the City would <br />have to do a fee in concert with the County and he was concerned about the equitable distribution of revenues. <br />He emphasized the importance of a gas tax that was regional in nature. He preferred a countywide gas tax <br />increase, but again was concerned about the equitable distribution of revenues. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner was not opposed to the proposed TSMF, but was not happy with one based on the type of <br />residence in which one lived. He said that on his own block there was one house with six unrelated occupants <br />and five vehicles. He wanted a fee based more directly on use and was frustrated by the lack of alternatives. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor commended the presentation. He agl <br />reed the City needed to work with Lane County and Springfield on a gas tax. Regarding the TSMF, Mr. Rayor <br />thought the basis for the fee was good and the reason for a relatively low residential cost and relatively higher <br />commercial cost. That was rational given the many more trips that those businesses generated. Mr. Rayor <br />was concerned about the supply side of the issue. He thought that there needed to be a guarantee to the <br />citizens that the money they paid was going into paving, not planning or administration or pension payments. <br />He wanted to know how much of what was collected would be paid to contractors doing the paving. Those <br />disclosures needed to be made now. He said that the City needed to work harder, smarter, and cheaper. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thanked staff for the presentation, saying that the organization was heading in the right direction. He <br />was pleased to see Springfield's participation and intrigued by Lane County's potential involvement, although <br />he shared Mr. Meisner's concerns. He believed that both the gas tax and TSMF would be needed to bring <br />down the maintenance backlog. Mr. Kelly suggested the council needed to discuss what other transportation- <br />related expenditures would be supported by the revenues to be collected, such as bicycle paths and sidewalks. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly appreciated that the packet included information distinguishing the resident types, but he continued <br />to be frustrated that there was nothing to distinguish between the types of houses Mr. Meisner described. He <br />wanted to see a proxy for usage, such as square footage or the number of vehicles. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked about the Springfield council's level of support for the TSMF. Len Goodwin of the <br />Springfield Public Works Department said that the council had been unfocused as to how the fee would be <br />implemented. The council wanted to keep the fee at a minimum level for all, and to ensure that it did not <br />unduly favor one segment of the community over another. The council wanted greater definition from staff <br />regarding other alternatives, and staff would return on July 22 with that discussion. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor commended the presentation. She still did not like the TSMF concept because she considered it <br />regressive. She preferred a combined approach of the SDC, the vehicle registration fee, and gas tax increase. <br />She shared Mr. Meisner's concern about equity. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ also commended the presentation. He thought the public outreach program being proposed was one <br />of the best he had seen. He appreciated the opportunity councilors had to tour the roads, and thought the <br />problem was well-quantified by staff. Speaking to Mr. Rayor's comments regarding working harder and <br />smarter, Mr. Pap~ said he had recently learned of new cement technology that could bring down those costs. <br />He asked Mr. Corey to discuss the advantages of asphalt versus concrete. Mr Corey said that what material <br />was selected depended to some degree on what was in place and current practices. There was nothing wrong <br />with either material, each had appropriate applications. Concrete vendors would point to a life cycle analysis <br />in support of their product, and asphalt providers would point to lower initial costs. Those issues needed to be <br />resolved at the project level. Those were technical issues, and not policy in nature. Mr. Pap~ suggested that <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 2002 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.