CC Minutes - 06/25/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

individual amendments. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Childs could not guarantee the list of possible revenue sources included in the amendment was all-inclusive, noting it was developed by the Budget Citizen Subcommittee. Ms. Bettman said the list of revenue sources excluded other potential revenues, citing "congestion pricing" and "vehicle miles traveled" charges as examples. She did not want to exclude any possibilities. Ms. Childs suggested the last sentence in the text preceding the list be revised as follows: The Eugene City Council shall adopt a revenue source, including but not limited to, one of the following... Mr. Kelly explained the intent of the amendment was to ensure that the council looked at existing revenue sources with the possibility of redirecting them from new capital projects to OM&P. He noted the complication in determining the amount of Surface Transportation Program funds available to Eugene because the other jurisdictions were not adopting similar text and there was no firm amount available to redirect. He said that he discussed the situation with Ms. Bettman, who had suggested policy language to address it. Mr. Rayor noted the hierarchy of priorities in the policy related to operations, maintenance, and preservation previously adopted by the council and questioned the relationship of that policy to the proposed text. He preferred the phrase "shall consider" over "shall adopt." Mr. Meisner was supportive of both the proposed amendments. With regard to Mr. Rayor's comment, he was not troubled by the phrase "shall adopt," pointing out that almost any taxing mechanism the council adopted could be referred to the voters. Ms. Nathanson asked if Eugene's participation in a metropolitan-wide gasoline tax would satisfy the intent of phrase "shall adopt," or if the council must adopt another revenue source. Mr. Carlson thought participation in such a tax would satisfy the text. Mr. Pap~ questioned whether the council was establishing a goal regarding OM&P that it could not meet. He noted that many local streets need to be upgraded, and sometimes neighbors did not support those improvements; he asked if the additional funding would be used to ensure such streets from falling no further behind in its condition of repair, and what impact that would have on the City's street assessment policies. Mr. Pap~ feared that the council could be limiting its options, particularly if the voters would not support a new tax. In response to Mr. Papa's comments, Mr. Kelly suggested his concerns related to local street improvements could be addressed by changing "roadway" to "improved roadway" in recognition of the fact the streets in question were not improved to City standards and could continue to fall behind. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 4 Work Session