Laserfiche WebLink
that needed to be adopted on a regional level, he could accept that. However, he did not think <br />that was the preferable approach. <br /> <br />Mr. Schwetz suggested the issues under discussion were implementation issues. Mr. Kelly <br />disagreed. Mr. Schwetz persisted, maintaining that the issue was an implementation issue. He <br />believed that as the issue played out regionally, it would be less about Mr. Kelly's concerns about <br />adequate funding for ©M&P and more about local control. Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Schwetz, <br />saying that essentially the council was telling two other jurisdictions how it thought they should <br />spend their money. He believed the council would object if the other jurisdictions attempted to do <br />the same to Eugene. Mr. Kelly said that was not his intent. However, if the range of potential <br />revenue sources could only be adopted at the county level or by both Eugene and Springfield, he <br />did not see any other logical approach. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Kelly's last comment, Mr. Schwetz said that few of the revenues on the list that <br />could be used to meet the City's ©M&P needs required metropolitan cooperation. The gas tax <br />was an exception. He believed that Eugene could successfully implement the policy unilaterally. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ thought Mr. Rayor's points were well-taken, and he concurred with the remarks of both <br />Mr. Schwetz and Mr. Johnson. He agreed the issues involved were implementation issues, and <br />objected to demanding how the other jurisdictions would implement the plan. He thought each <br />jurisdiction should be allowed flexibility to be creative. Mr. Pap~ did not support the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that he did not anticipate county residents would support a gas tax. He thought <br />there were local options available to Eugene. He did not think the issue should go back to MPC <br />again, as he anticipated it could have a detrimental effect on the other MPC's acceptance of the <br />other motions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that the council tried to achieve the same objective with the finance policy it <br />proposed to the other jurisdictions, which she believed had many loopholes in it, but in spite of <br />those loopholes it was not accepted by the other jurisdictions. If the council valued maintaining <br />the existing system and wanted to protect the taxpayers' existing investment in the infrastructure <br />and had only limited funds, it must do something. She thought the motion was the option the <br />council was left with. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson did not support the motion because the plan was a multi-jurisdictional plan and the <br />motion could be detrimental to the City's working relationship with the other jurisdictions. If the <br />concept was acceptable to the City's partners in TransPlan, that would be great, but she did not <br />think that would happen. If the motion did not pass, it did not preclude the City from taking action <br />alone. She said that the City could always raise the issue of a countywide gas tax or countywide <br />motor vehicle registration with its interjurisdictional partners. She did not know if a countywide <br />gas tax would be approved, and wondered if a metropolitan gas tax might not be a better <br />approach. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he would reluctantly vote to support the motion, although he continued to have <br />the same objections to its second element. However, he did not want to be perceived as <br />opposing the first part of the motion, which he found very important. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson reported that <br />the Budget Citizen Subcommittee was discussing the potential of a metropolitan gas tax. The <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />