Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to amend the main motion to delete Section 7.750(2)(a) from the ordinance concerning a transportation system maintenance fee. Councilor Poling stated that his purpose was to prevent TSMF revenues from being used for anything other than curb-to-curb repairs. He was agreeable to a suggestion at an earlier meeting by Councilor Kelly that five percent be dedicated to off-street bike paths, but wanted to remove any possibility of TSMF revenues being used for OMP and improvements; funds should be used strictly for road repairs. Councilor Bettman asked how revenue collected annually would be impacted. Mr. Corey responded that the rate methodology would not be affected but it would create a problem that would not be addressed as part of the strategy and that was the need to fill the $1.5 million gap in the operations and maintenance budget. He said Councilor Poling’s amendment would address the backlog of deferred maintenance but leave unresolved the funding gap in operations and maintenance. Councilor Kelly said he would support an amendment that only deleted the words “and improve” instead of the entire section. He wanted to restrict the TSMF to OMP but not improvement or new streets. He said since the council chose not to address road operations funds with some other budgetary mechanism to resolve the $1.5 million gap, he could not support the amendment. Councilor Papé felt that people wanted the streets repaired and if there could be a sunset at the point when repairs were completed he thought OMP could be funded from a source like the gas tax. He asked if any gas tax revenue was currently used for OMP. Mr. Corey replied that the local option gas tax completely dedicated to capital preservation and had been since its inception. He said the operation and maintenance gap could be addressed through other means, such as an increase to the local gas tax. He said each cent of tax generated about $700,000 annually, so a two-cent increase would close the gap. Councilor Papé remarked that he wanted to see the City use TSMF revenues for repairs, be held account- able, get the job done and then rely on other sources for OMP. He would support the amendment. Councilor Bettman pointed out that Section 7.760(1) stated the fee should not be used for capacity- enhancing street improvements. She believed there was a conflict with the language and definition and one of her amendments would resolve the issue. She would support Councilor Poling’s amendment if the words “and improvements” were removed, but if the TSMF passed she did not want the $1.5 million to be shifted from other General Fund services. Roll call vote, the vote to amend the main motion by deleting Section 7l750(2)(a) from the ordinance concerning a transportation system maintenance fee was a 4:4 tie, with councilors Poling, Solomon, Pryor and Papé voting in favor and councilors Bettman, Kelly, Taylor and Ortiz voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in op- position and the motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Poling asked about the average cost to a taxpayer of GO bonding versus TSMF. Mr. Corey said if there was a $100 million issue to address most of the backlog of repairs the estimated additional cost for a median value homeowner would be approximately $125 annually. He said the TSMF would be about half that amount. Councilor Poling asked how much of GO funds could be used for curb-to-curb work. Financial Services Manager Sue Cutsogeorge replied that use of GO obligation bonds was established by State statute and they MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 7 Regular Meeting