Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pryor commented that business trips were only a fraction of the miles driven in a community; the majority of trips related to family and personal activities. Relative to the issue of who should pay for —— transportation system improvementsusers or the community as a wholehe said the transportation system was a civic need and community responsibility like police, fire, and education. He said demand management could meet part of the goal by reducing vehicle trips but could not address all transportation system needs. He agreed with the importance of accommodating bicycles and pedestrians but the $110 million backlog of street projects required that to be the focus of the City’s attention. Regarding one-time versus ongoing expenses, he said the City had to develop a mixed funding strategy that considered all of the options presented by staff. Ms. Taylor stated she was pleased the commuter tax was listed as a possibility and hoped it would be seriously considered. She did not feel that decreasing the disposable income of nonresidents was relevant as other taxes within the City decreased the disposable income of residents. She strongly encouraged the commuter tax as part of the funding strategy. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that data indicated half of the 80,000 jobs in Eugene were held by nonresidents and any fee or taxed imposed would only fall on the half who lived in the City; the other half would pay nothing, but still use streets. He said that also meant the half who were taxed were subsidizing the other half who were nonresidents. He urged a funding mechanism that would provide transportation system support from both residents and nonresidents. He said the transportation system included cars, bicycles, trucks, pedestrians, and buses and that should be taken into account. He urged a connection between how the funding would be used and where it came from. He said there was a direct connection between a fuel tax and use of the streets but a tenuous connection with a property tax levy. He did not feel the value of a house or business had any relationship to use of the roads. He said the TSMF had a better connection but was not fair to those who did not drive cars on the roads and used other modes of transportation. He preferred a carbon tax or one based on miles driven. Mr. Corey observed that the idea that only those with vehicles benefited from the transportation system was at odds with the findings of an earlier Citizen Budget Subcommittee report on the issue. He said the basis of the TSMF recognized that there were people who did not drive cars but did use sidewalks, bike paths and transit and therefore the gas tax component placed a greater burden on those who used the street. He said the report concluded that everyone who lived in the City benefited from the road system through delivery of mail, goods and services, transit and other services, whether or not they drove a vehicle. Ms. Bettman noted that the $53 million backlog of preservation projects in 2001 had doubled and stated that the transportation system as designed was not sustainable and would also siphon funds from other services unless there was a way to balance funding among transportation modes. She did not think the options provided by staff accomplished that. She said the transportation system served everyone but at drastically different levels. She said what the council was trying to encourage with its long-term sustainability goals for transportation should be built into the funding strategy. She would consider options that were equitable and sustainable. Ms. Bettman said the commuter tax was defined as a tax on income but it should be a fee that paralleled whatever fee was allocated to residents of the City who paid a tax to fund transportation. Mr. Clark said he believed the transportation system as a whole was a public utility and residents expected that it would be maintained as a basic service. He agreed that residents and nonresidents should share the burden of supporting the system. He thought the idea of a garbage truck surcharge was interesting as a more user-oriented approach to charging people for using the road. He suggested other users for which a similar approach could be considered such as other utility providers, school buses or other buses. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 6 Work Session