Laserfiche WebLink
about the likely community support for a gas tax, and suggested a nickel rather than four cents <br />per gallon. Ms. Nathanson pointed to other taxing measures proposed over the last 12 months <br />and those anticipated over the next 12 months, and questioned how much more local government <br />could ask voters to pay. Ms. Nathanson was not willing to forward the TSMF proposal at this <br />time. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor also thanked staff for its work. He suggested three potential changes to the ordinance <br />regarding the TSMF: 1) add a subsection 3 to Section 7.750 that discusses efficiency in procuring <br />services and stipulate the funds will be spent on paving; 2) add a subsection (g) to Section 7.765 <br />that stated rates would be adjusted as other revenue sources were realized and revise subsection <br />(2) to indicate that rates would not be supplemented by other revenue forms; and 3) revise <br />Section 7.765(2) to list the size of the residence and the number of bedrooms so these can be <br />included if staff does come to the conclusion that they correlate with transportation usage. <br /> <br />Regarding implementation of the fee, Mr. Rayor said the council should be discussing the number <br />and forms of taxes that have been initiated, and how best to approach this one. He was leaning <br />toward administrative implementation of the tax because using the streets is a cost that has been <br />traditionally subsidized, and now the community must pay the piper. He preferred to see the <br />needed funds realized through a countywide gas tax, but did not see that happening. He agreed <br />with Ms. Nathanson about the County's involvement in any gas tax proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson said that staff would take into consideration Mr. Rayor's suggestions regarding the <br />ordinance, and incorporate them where appropriate. The ordinance could be further amended by <br />the council following the public hearing. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked how the proposed TSMF ordinance affected the University of Oregon and the <br />school districts. Mr. Carlson said they were all addressed by the ordinance. Mr. Corey said that <br />the University would be assessed on the order of $100,000 to $120,000 annually; the 4J School <br />District would be assessed about $50,000, and Bethel School District about $15,000 to $20,000. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said there was never a good time to ask the voters for more money. However, he <br />believed Ms. Nathanson's points about the number of money measures offered to the voters were <br />well-taken. He was leaning against implementing a tax by ordinance. Mayor Torrey said he was <br />not afraid of asking the voters what they thought. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey thought a gas tax the best approach because of the "user pays" approach it <br />represented. He supported a TSMF if staff could identify fees that were currently being paid that <br />were equal to the amount that would be charged the citizens, and eliminate those fees. Mayor <br />Torrey believed a local approach was needed because a State solution was not forthcoming. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey wanted to see more money for capital improvements, and questioned where the City <br />could find the money to build new roads in areas that were not the responsibility of other <br />jurisdictions. He did not think the council would get voter support for a future money measure to <br />fund new road capacity if it passed the ordinances before it. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman agreed with the mayor's statements, with the exception of his remarks related to <br />funding for new capital improvements. She said that the construction of new capital <br />improvements without adequate maintenance funding was how the community got into the <br />situation it was in. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 13 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />