CC Minutes - 11/27/06 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Poling asked about the average cost to a taxpayer of GO bonding versus TSMF. Mr. Corey said if there was a $100 million issue to address most of the backlog of repairs the estimated additional cost for a median value homeowner would be approximately $125 annually. He said the TSMF would be about half that amount. Councilor Poling asked how much of GO funds could be used for curb-to-curb work. Financial Services Manager Sue Cutsogeorge replied that use of GO obligation bonds was established by State statute and they were limited to construction and capital improvements; routine maintenance was not eligible. City Manager Taylor said that reconstruction might be eligible but he would need to confer with bond counsel; some portion of preservation and maintenance might also be eligible and that could be researched if the council decided to pursue GO bonding. Councilor Pryor stated that he supported a TSMF but not this TSMF for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the level of consternation, questioning, and uncertainty among councilors. He felt there should be much more discussion of the issue and apologized to those on the council who had been engaged in the TSMF discussion far longer. He wanted more discussion of options such as bonding and a gas tax before supporting a maintenance fee in the current form. He wanted a TSMF that was reasonable, accountable, was supported by the community, and was part of a larger strategy that could solve the $110 million problem, of which half was capital and half maintenance. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to postpone action on the transportation system maintenance fee until the city manager could schedule a work session to consider additions or alterations to the program. Councilor Taylor said she would support the motion. Councilor Kelly said he could support the motion if it charted a new direction such as a work session to consider a mix of GO bond, gas tax, and other options, but as phrased the motion felt like returning to the beginning of the discussion and he could not support it. Councilor Papé remarked that the City had a problem that was getting worse and discussion of solutions had begun in 2000 with the citizen members of the Budget Committee. He said that some action was necessary and any ordinance enacted could always be reviewed, modified, or repealed. He urged immediate action on the concrete solution before the council. Councilor Ortiz said the discussions in 2000 occurred a long time ago and if anything was going to be presented to the voters the council owed it to them to start from “square one” and review all of the options again. She would support the motion for that reason. She was willing to support some part of a TSMF but could wait until new members had joined the council and further discussions occurred. Councilor Bettman said she intended to support the substitute motion to postpone as the proposed ordinance did not reflect the center of the council and had very little community support. She pointed out that both the business community and the “progressive” community were opposed to it and she believed the council should consider some options, including a commuter tax. She thought that any version of the current ordinance that was enacted would be referred to the voters and the council should craft an ordinance that would appeal to the majority of the voters. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 8 Regular Meeting