Laserfiche WebLink
were limited to construction and capital improvements; routine maintenance was not eligible. City Manager <br />Taylor said that reconstruction might be eligible but he would need to confer with bond counsel; some <br />portion of preservation and maintenance might also be eligible and that could be researched if the council <br />decided to pursue GO bonding. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor stated that he supported a TSMF but not this TSMF for a number of reasons, not the least <br />of which was the level of consternation, questioning, and uncertainty among councilors. He felt there should <br />be much more discussion of the issue and apologized to those on the council who had been engaged in the <br />TSMF discussion far longer. He wanted more discussion of options such as bonding and a gas tax before <br />supporting a maintenance fee in the current form. He wanted a TSMF that was reasonable, accountable, <br />was supported by the community, and was part of a larger strategy that could solve the $110 million <br />problem, of which half was capital and half maintenance. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to postpone action on the <br />transportation system maintenance fee until the city manager could schedule a work <br />session to consider additions or alterations to the program. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor said she would support the motion. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly said he could support the motion if it charted a new direction such as a work session to <br />consider a mix of GO bond, gas tax, and other options, but as phrased the motion felt like returning to the <br />beginning of the discussion and he could not support it. <br /> <br />Councilor Papé remarked that the City had a problem that was getting worse and discussion of solutions had <br />begun in 2000 with the citizen members of the Budget Committee. He said that some action was necessary <br />and any ordinance enacted could always be reviewed, modified, or repealed. He urged immediate action on <br />the concrete solution before the council. <br /> <br />Councilor Ortiz said the discussions in 2000 occurred a long time ago and if anything was going to be <br />presented to the voters the council owed it to them to start from “square one” and review all of the options <br />again. She would support the motion for that reason. She was willing to support some part of a TSMF but <br />could wait until new members had joined the council and further discussions occurred. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman said she intended to support the substitute motion to postpone as the proposed ordinance <br />did not reflect the center of the council and had very little community support. She pointed out that both the <br />business community and the “progressive” community were opposed to it and she believed the council <br />should consider some options, including a commuter tax. She thought that any version of the current <br />ordinance that was enacted would be referred to the voters and the council should craft an ordinance that <br />would appeal to the majority of the voters. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor clarified the intent of his motion, which was that there were options that the council had <br />already considered seriously, such as bonding, a gas tax, and TSMF. He hoped the work session would be <br />confined to a combination of those options to address both preservation and operation. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor restated his motion: Move to postpone action on this item and di- <br />rect the city manager to schedule a work session to consider additions or alterations <br />to the funding strategy, including from a mainstream perspective a transportation <br />system maintenance fee, gas tax, and bond. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 8 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />