Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

was a known amount and the rate decreased each year as assessed value grew, spreading more thinly across more value. He said which option to pursue was a policy decision by the council. City Manager Taylor said it was the council’s choice which levy approach to take and the amount targeted over the life of the limited levy. He said there were some practical considerations in terms of what meaningful amount of construction could be accomplished each year but staff could provide high- and low- end predictions. Ms. Bettman expressed interest in the commuter tax as a parallel fee, not as a tax on income. She said it was unfair to ask residents to be burdened with the entire cost of maintaining the infrastructure that everyone used. She said that would discourage people from living within the city limits. Mr. Zelenka appreciated Mr. Poling’s suggestion to reduce the user fee for people who did not own cars. He stated it was not the transportation system that was unsustainable; it was the financing of the system that was unsustainable. He said it was important to have a package of strategies to solve the entire funding problem and not just a piece of it. He said there was an opportunity to have an incentive to encourage people to use alternative modes of transportation; that would become even more important as the community grew and congestion increased. He agreed it was important to place a burden of proof on those would might be eligible for a reduced fee. He asked if rebates were permissible under a TSMF. Mr. Hill said that the council would need to make that determination but he thought that rebates were permitted. City Attorney Jerome Lidz added that to the extent a fee for service was imposed, that rationale was undermined by an exemption of entities that used the service; therefore, finding a subsidy toward the portion of a user’s fee that the City wished to reduce would be preferable. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back creative solutions for adequately funding the transportation system for cars, trucks, bicycles and pedestrians that collected funds proportionately or equally with residents and nonresidents that use the roads, was more consistent with the sustain- ability goal, had more direct connection to use of the roads like a carbon tax or garbage truck fee and that rebated or gave incentives to those that did not have cars or used them very little. Ms. Bettman supported the motion because it could result in a proposal that had a broader-based council support that would reflect broader community support. She was interested in other strategies discussed by the subcommittee such as regional SDCs, taxes or fees on provided parking and heavy axel fees. She said there needed to be a way to fund the bicycle system and many people had told her they would be willing to support taxes if the bike path system would benefit. Mr. Pryor appreciated the interest in a creative solution with broader options and opportunities but felt some pressure to act immediately, at least on some parts of the proposal. He would not support Mr. Zelenka’s motion but did encourage the conversation about options and would support the suggested motions. He was motivated to take action on solving the problem and liked the idea of a levy and some form of TSMF. Mr. Clark concurred with Mr. Pryor and said he would support a hearing on the gas tax and a resolution with regard to the levy, but would support Mr. Zelenka’s motion if it meant moving forward on a systemic approach. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 8 Work Session