Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Ortiz said she would support the motion although it was “muddying the water,” but encouraged the <br />council to spend more time considering options for transportation system funds. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon said she could not support the motion because it was “muddying the water” and, while she did <br />support the concepts identified in the motion, it did not include a capital local option levy and only directed <br />the City Manager to bring back more options. She said that same direction had been given by the council <br />many times in the last several years and staff had provided good ideas that the council could act upon. She <br />felt Mr. Zelenka’s motion could increase the number of options but echoed Mr. Pryor’s comments about the <br />need to take action now. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy said as much as she wanted to see the council move forward, there did not appear to be a <br />strong majority for any option. She did not want to send out a funding strategy on which the council was <br />divided and it was too important to not try to achieve consensus. She suggested the council form a <br />subcommittee to work on the various ideas and try to combine them into a proposal that would garner <br />broader support on the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka felt that more time was needed to obtain additional information and develop a funding strategy. <br />He felt the motions suggested in the agenda packet were premature. He wanted to avoid a piecemeal <br />approach to transportation system funding and preferred a complete solution. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said that spending more time considering the options should include a timeline. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor offered a friendly amendment to establish a date certain, such as in three <br />months, for the council to act on a package proposal. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she was concerned that three months was not enough time and was more comfortable <br />taking up the matter in September when the council returned from its break. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Clark, and Ms. Solomon felt September was too long to wait. <br /> <br />Mr. Corey agreed that it would be helpful to have a council subcommittee assigned to work with staff. He <br />felt a proposal could be developed by mid- to late-April 2007. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she hoped that a funding strategy would take into account broader public interests as the <br />current options had divided support among councilors. She was in favor of a public hearing on the gas tax <br />to determine public sentiment about removing the sunset provision and increasing the rate. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor stated she would support the motion and was interested in a commuter tax, a local option levy, a <br />gas tax, and inclusion of bicycles. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said he would support the motion but encouraged the council to send the gas tax to a public <br />hearing so that it was moving forward on a parallel track. <br /> <br />The motion as amended passed, 7:1; Mr. Poling voting in opposition. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 22, 2007 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />