Laserfiche WebLink
they would have to work to communicate and educate the voters and convince them of the need <br />to come together in partnership with the council to solve the problem. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ questioned how the TSMF ordinance related to the information provided to the council <br />about the trip generation characteristics of different uses and potential adjustments. Mr. Corey <br />said that the ordinance had no specific inclusion of correlated characteristics. Those issues <br />would be considered when the administrative rules were developed. Staff recommended that the <br />council adopt six classifications for residential users and corresponding rates for nonresidential <br />users for the purpose of simplicity, consistency, and legality. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ suggested that the City take advantage of the list of drivers licenses as opposed to using <br />a house's square footage, which could change. Mr. Corey said that the number of drivers <br />licenses did not correlate to system impact. Mr. Carlson pointed out that out-of-state and out-of- <br />country students, for example, do not have Oregon licenses and cannot be tracked. If the City <br />used the number of drivers in a household, it would have to account for all State information and <br />account for out-of-state and foreign drivers. That information changed all the time depending on <br />who was living in a unit in any given month, making it a major undertaking to maintain a database. <br /> Mr. Carlson suggested that a square footage approach would require less database <br />maintenance as the information did not change often, and it could be updated through the Building <br />Division. That approach had some positive correlation with trip-making, and it could be a more <br />viable approach than either counting drivers licenses or registered vehicles, given the number of <br />out-of-state vehicles in Eugene. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ endorsed the use of TSMF revenues to pay for filling gaps in the sidewalk system, street <br />lights, traffic signals, and bicycle path extensions. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she was amazed the council was discussing new taxes after its discussion of <br />June 24, during which a council majority rejected several alternative taxing proposals. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said it was her perception, following a discussion with County representatives in <br />December 2001, that the board was open to a gas tax. She did not think the City should move <br />forward on its own without knowing what the County would do. She suggested that holding a <br />public hearing was premature. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she would not support a TSMF if it was not referred to the voters. She thought it <br />a regressive and unfair tax that was difficult to make more fair, and did not anticipate that <br />attaching the fee to utility bills would be popular with the public. Ms. Taylor reiterated her interest <br />in a countywide approach. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson complimented the staff for the information provided to the council. She asked if <br />the County would be willing to adopt a tax that applied to the urbanizing areas, and hoped the <br />board would be willing to go that far if it was unwilling to adopt a gas tax that was applied <br />countywide. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson thought the staff had made a case for the solution being proposed. She said that <br />the maintenance backlog was a hidden problem, and it took time to build community <br />understanding of the issues involved. The problem was there, growing bigger, and it would be <br />worse in the future. However, she did not think residents acknowledged the problem as <br />sufficiently serious to begin to pay for it now through a TSMF. Ms. Nathanson thought the City <br />needed to start work to begin to address the maintenance backlog. She was more confident <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 12 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />