Laserfiche WebLink
and staff was making the recommendation for adoption by ordinance as that was consistent with <br />the approach taken by other Oregon cities. He emphasized that the success of such programs <br />was based on the results achieved, not on the debate regarding how the City got to the particular <br />funding source. He said that the council could determine if it wished the issue to go to the voters. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor returned to the meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson said that the City was using all its State shared gas tax money as well as County <br />Road Fund money for OM&P. The City was using SDCs, grants, and assessments for new <br />capacity projects. Regarding the TSMF, he said staff wanted to be clear it was listening to input <br />about not spending money on street capacity improvements. The Citizen Budget Subcommittee <br />had discussed the potential of using the funding to fill in gaps in the sidewalk system, street lights, <br />traffic signals, and bicycle path extensions. Those elements were considered capacity <br />improvements. Staff did not want to preclude the use of fee revenues being spent for those <br />purposes, so specifically recommended limiting those dollars to projects not involving new street <br />capacity. <br /> <br />Regarding the gas tax, Mr. Carlson said that staff was proposing to employ the State <br />constitutional limits now governing the use of those revenues. He confirmed, in response to a <br />follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, that the City's County Road Fund and State gas tax dollars <br />were devoted now to OM&P. Mr. Carlson noted that the specific capital project funding from the <br />County is spent on capacity, such as opening Broadway, at the discretion of the County <br />commissioners. However, the City did not spend any flexible funding on anything but OM&P. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner expressed appreciation to the citizen members of the Budget Committee for their <br />defensible and well-reasoned recommendations. He concurred that the motor vehicle fuel tax <br />ordinance should be contingent upon Springfield's adoption of a similar gas tax, and also <br />concurred with limiting its use to OM&P. Regarding the proposed TSMF, he expressed concern <br />that the background materials mentioned possible adjustments to the trip generation <br />characteristics of different uses, but no adjustments were identified in the ordinance. Mr. Meisner <br />wanted text in the ordinance to ensure that the council reviewed the staff evaluation of the <br />adjustments prior to adoption of the administrative rules. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner did not believe the ordinance needed to be referred to the voters as the voters could <br />also refer the ordinance if they wished. He pointed out that the council did not object to raising <br />the stormwater fee, which was done without a public hearing, much less a vote. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 also thanked the Citizen Budget Subcommittee and complimented staff for the good <br />work it had done in making a difficult issue understandable. He agreed with Mr. Farr that a gas <br />tax increase would drive motorists to other communities. He asked about the County's reaction to <br />a countywide gas tax proposal. Mr. Carlson said he recently reminded Bill Dwyer, chair of the <br />Lane County Board of County Commissioners, that the board agreed to discuss a gas tax and <br />countywide vehicle registration fee; Mr. Dwyer had indicated willingness to pursue the topics, but <br />no work sessions had yet been scheduled. Mr. Pap8 encouraged councilors to make contact with <br />the commissioners and advocate that a board work session be scheduled. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 agreed with Ms. Bettman about the need to refer the issue to the voters. He thought <br />putting the issue to a vote would help the councilors do their jobs as public officials better, in that <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />