Laserfiche WebLink
Councilor Taylor indicated she wished to offer a motion to amend Councilor Pryor’s motion to add other <br />options. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly pointed out that while it was acceptable from a parliamentary procedure perspective, it was <br />the council’s practice never to amend amendments. Mayor Piercy agreed that only one amendment at a time <br />should be considered. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman proposed a friendly amendment to add a commuter tax to the list of options to be <br />considered. Councilor Pryor accepted the friendly amendment for purposes of discussing the option at a <br />work session. <br /> <br />Councilor Papé said that while he would not be on the council in 2007 to discuss the matter it was his <br />sincere hope that the council would not still be debating the issue four or five years in the future with a $150 <br />million backlog. He challenged the current council and two new councilors to get the job done even though <br />the solution might not be agreeable to everyone. <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon said the council had been having the same conversation over and over again. She <br />thought that the council agreed a TSMF had a valid position in the City’s strategy for transportation funding <br />and she did not understand why the council got to the point of making a decision and then backed off. She <br />encouraged the council to take action to include the TSMF as one of the strategies and as Councilor Papé <br />mentioned earlier, it could always be adjusted later to accommodate other options. She hoped that the <br />council would not be starting the discussion over every two years as that would be a disservice to citizens. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly shared Councilor Solomon’s sentiment and thanked her for speaking up. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor noted that the TSMF ordinance before the council was designed in such a way that if <br />the council added to the gas tax or pursued a GO bond or other options, the formula would be adjusted. He <br />said the ordinance did not presume that a TSMF was the only way to deal with the backlog or pavement <br />preservation; it was designed to accommodate new revenue streams or sources as they became available. He <br />said if the ordinance was adopted the council would still be able to consider other options that would have <br />the effect of reducing the amounts assessed for the TSMF. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy clarified that if the council adopted the ordinance a work session on options could still be held. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor stated that the TSMF was an unfair tax and she would never vote for it. She hoped the <br />council could discuss other options such as taxes on parking spaces and commuter taxes. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman remarked that the reason the council had not acted on a TSMF was because the proposal <br />before it was very inequitable and a better proposal was needed. She noted that any revisions to the <br />ordinance after it was adopted would require a public hearing and could take considerable time. She hoped <br />a new proposal was developed that would have broader community support. <br /> <br />Roll call vote, the vote on the motion to postpone action on a transportation system <br />maintenance fee was a 4:4 tie, with councilors Pryor, Bettman, Taylor and Ortiz <br />voting in support, and councilors Kelly, Poling, Solomon and Papé voting in oppo- <br />sition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the motion, and it passed on a final vote of <br />5:4. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 9 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />